A Proof That God Exists
Lincoln

United States

#1489 May 5, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
"Lincoln is a passive-aggressive creationist troll who sh*ts lies about atheists in this forum instead of engaging with the forum users, because he is a coward who has no proof of the god he is lying about." - Skeptic.
Septic has issues, LOL
Lincoln

United States

#1490 May 5, 2013
“As far as I am concerned, philosophic questioning is just as likely to make you confused and depressed as it is to improve your condition.”

&#8213; Christopher Paolini, Brisingr
Lincoln

United States

#1491 May 5, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim you have "no belief" that god does not exist, then call god's existence an "idiot notion"??
You are too stupid to realize you just proved yourself a liar.
Saved others the trouble. Thanks.
Bob posts 200 times a day,
proves he can type but little more.
He may be the atheist Pope,

Bob is Troll number 1 on the forum
Imhotep

Silver Springs, FL

#1492 May 5, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Bob posts 200 times a day,
proves he can type but little more.
He may be the atheist Pope,
Bob is Troll number 1 on the forum
If you are not irreligious... why then, on your personal gods... green earth, are you even here?

To what purpose?
Cannot this God speak for itself?
Are you the self-appointed spokesperson of this God,

Your faith has been soundly rejected.
Simply put we don't care.

We don't respect your beliefs and we don't care if you're offended.

Is your mission to convert - to preach, like Jehoovies Witlesses via Topix rather than Knocking on the door?

I can't speak for all but I have absolutely no interest in attending anything to do with religion - anybody's - anywhere - any cult - any time.

Boring and useless.
Aesop's fables are much more entertaining

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1493 May 5, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a low grade moron.
At best.
Clearly there is a very strong correlation between Buck and stupidity. But, as we all know, correlation does not imply causation. So there are some important questions still left to answer.

Does Buck cause stupidity? Or does stupidity cause Buck? Perhaps Buck and stupidity have a common cause. Or it could just simply be that Buck = stupidity.

Opinions?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1494 May 5, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly there is a very strong correlation between Buck and stupidity. But, as we all know, correlation does not imply causation. So there are some important questions still left to answer.
Does Buck cause stupidity? Or does stupidity cause Buck? Perhaps Buck and stupidity have a common cause. Or it could just simply be that Buck = stupidity.
Opinions?
It may be a matter of critical stupidity quotient.

In that a certain level of 'stupid' reaches a critical point, and then begins a run-away stupid event, which spreads to everyone nearby.

:)
Lincoln

United States

#1495 May 5, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are not irreligious... why then, on your personal gods... green earth, are you even here?
To what purpose?
Cannot this God speak for itself?
Are you the self-appointed spokesperson of this God,
Your faith has been soundly rejected.
Simply put we don't care.
We don't respect your beliefs and we don't care if you're offended.
Is your mission to convert - to preach, like Jehoovies Witlesses via Topix rather than Knocking on the door?
I can't speak for all but I have absolutely no interest in attending anything to do with religion - anybody's - anywhere - any cult - any time.
Boring and useless.
Aesop's fables are much more entertaining
You possibly need to find a new hobby
LOL
Lincoln

United States

#1496 May 5, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
It may be a matter of critical stupidity quotient.
In that a certain level of 'stupid' reaches a critical point, and then begins a run-away stupid event, which spreads to everyone nearby.
:)
Bob has the illusion that He is Pope of atheists
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1497 May 5, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
The chandelier IS already suspended. And time still exists.
It was suspended yesterday; it is suspended today.
Your new prevarication is claiming prior cause and effect, as in the act of installing the chandelier.
Exactly, but not a new prevarication. I am restoring time you have removed. Suspension occurred when tension was placed on the chain to lift the chandelier to the ceiling. The tension remains until something causes the force to be removed which will in turn cause it to fall.
Buck Crick wrote:
Extending this, everything in the universe has only one cause, and everything else is the effect. Your proposed cause is not the cause, as the chain did not exist until someone dug the iron ore out of the ground.
So is iron ore the cause of the suspension? Or is the trackhoe that dug it the cause?
You offer nonsense.
Not at all. I am aware of the inevitable regression to other causes (which I have no problem with), which we can take as far back to the beginning of the universe itself, which inevitably leads us to something that (barring an infinite string of causes) is uncaused, something which you hypocritically allow for your position but not for us. Despite the fact that your position appeals to a magical wizard for which you have zero scientific evidence. At this point your position requires you to make use of a "pure logic" argument due to the fact that you know you are unable to back up your claims past the point of universal singularity using scientific evidence or scientific testing. In other words you invent axioms which may or may not be relevant to reality and have no way of knowing but proclaim them as Gospel (if you'll excuse the deliciously appropriate term) which is exactly the same mistake that Aristotle made millenia ago.
Buck Crick wrote:
Multiple cause/effect relationships led to the suspension of the chandelier. The particular cause/effect relation I am discussing is the present suspension, in time, which is a simultaneous cause and effect.
Which removes time as a factor. I put that back in and you merely attempt to dismiss it.
Buck Crick wrote:
For other examples of simultaneous cause and effect, you may consider a cannon ball resting on a pillow, or a floating log displacing water.
All of which required the ball to be previously placed on the pillow and the log to fall into the water.
Buck Crick wrote:
You do not understand the discussion, and you are not capable of the critical thought necessary to understand it.
Maybe you breathed to much dirty fog.
Whereas your breathing apparatus is permanently attached to the exhaust pipe, inevitably leading to your rear end.(shrug)
Buck Crick wrote:
It is perfectly possible to lack belief in something due to lack of evidence.
But that is not atheism.
Attempting to define atheism that way is an attempt at dilution of the definition to remove any burden, and it is a fairly modern development.
On the contrary that original Greek I gave you was quite old. Like I said, you want the fundie-caricature of the term. In which case I provide you with Skippy the 'Skeptic', the fundamentalist atheist of your dreams. He is in many ways your alter-ego.
Buck Crick wrote:
It's a lie, in other words. It fits you.
Go boom. Irony meter duz it.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1498 May 5, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
I know that you are extremely stubborn by nature and that it is nearly impossible for you to change your mind about anything, much less admit that you are mistaken, but it's time for you to do both. you are simply wrong about this.
You're talking about a guy who has over time claimed to know more about science than Darwin, Newton, Einstein and Hawking combined. As well as constantly brag about how big his muscles are. Ever heard the song "Mr Apollo"?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1499 May 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You're talking about a guy who has over time claimed to know more about science than Darwin, Newton, Einstein and Hawking combined. As well as constantly brag about how big his muscles are. Ever heard the song "Mr Apollo"?
Well, one thing is certain: muscle tissue has replaced all the neural tissue within his skull...

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1500 May 5, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Bob posts 200 times a day,
proves he can type but little more.
He may be the atheist Pope,
Bob is Troll number 1 on the forum
That depends on how one defines "troll." Some seem to define it as "anyone on the internet who irritates me." I think the key attribute is intent to disrupt. Bob doesn't do that. Even though he is amazingly prolific (he says he can type something on the order of 200 words per minute), he is often responding to other posts. He gets personal, but his posts usually contain substance--actual ideas--along with his critiques of other writers on the forum.

We do have real trolls, who do disrupt threads by hammering on agendas that didn't have anything to do with the topics until they brought them up. We have one who has kept one thread focused on whether the UK is a monarchy or not for more than a month. Now THAT's trolling. Paul WV injects the same bogus "science" into every thread whether it has anything to do with the topic or not because he's obsessive and probably more than a little crazy, and that's trolling, too.

Bob also writes in the atheism forum from an atheist point of view. Those who accuse him of trollery invariably come to harass atheists by repeating the same tired arguments that have been refuted so often that we sometimes let them go out of sheer boredom. That's trolling, too.

Sound familiar?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1501 May 5, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
You possibly need to find a new hobby
LOL
That's a rather trollish response...

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1502 May 5, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Bob has the illusion that He is Pope of atheists
That's a rather trollish response...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1503 May 5, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
That depends on how one defines "troll." Some seem to define it as "anyone on the internet who irritates me." I think the key attribute is intent to disrupt. Bob doesn't do that. Even though he is amazingly prolific (he says he can type something on the order of 200 words per minute), he is often responding to other posts. He gets personal, but his posts usually contain substance--actual ideas--along with his critiques of other writers on the forum.
We do have real trolls, who do disrupt threads by hammering on agendas that didn't have anything to do with the topics until they brought them up. We have one who has kept one thread focused on whether the UK is a monarchy or not for more than a month. Now THAT's trolling. Paul WV injects the same bogus "science" into every thread whether it has anything to do with the topic or not because he's obsessive and probably more than a little crazy, and that's trolling, too.
Bob also writes in the atheism forum from an atheist point of view. Those who accuse him of trollery invariably come to harass atheists by repeating the same tired arguments that have been refuted so often that we sometimes let them go out of sheer boredom. That's trolling, too.
Sound familiar?
I have a couple of motives for being on Topix.

One is to practice expressing myself in words-- that is a worth-while activity for anyone, I think.

Words are the only medium we humans have, to try to exchange ideas amongst ourselves; we have no telepathy after all.

So practicing one's words, to improve one's ability to communicate is a worthy activity for anyone.

Another reason is to make jokes-- if I can get someone to laugh a bit, then that's worthwhile too. Life is short-- there is never enough time to laugh as much as we should, I say.

Think about that: if everyone in a war, were laughing? Who would be willing to shoot their guns? Few, if not everyone, would not be shooting, if they were laughing.:D

Same thing for a riot-- if everyone involved started laughing? Soon the riot would be not-a-riot, but simply a buncha folk laughing. ;)

Finally? I come here to talk to other people-- that last one is not as often as I'd like, too much silliness interferes with those conversations.

But they do happen-- of late, I've been avidly following Polymath's layman's description of Quantum-Mechanics. It is so incredibly cool to read his stuff, he is truly a good teacher.

And I had a kind of epiphany while reading his posts-- Quantum Mechanics pretty much eliminates all possibility of an omniscient deity.... which wipes out much of religion's claims in one go.

And that? That is cool.

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1504 May 5, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>That's a rather trollish response...
I suspect poor Lincoln is just wanting to find a friend.

Alas, his personality is such, that when he's being himself, he tends to drive people away .... kinda sad.

Because once in a great while, he might have something worthwhile to say... alas, that is always lost in the noise.

And he does make a lot of noise, doesn't he?
Lincoln

United States

#1505 May 5, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
That depends on how one defines "troll." Some seem to define it as "anyone on the internet who irritates me." I think the key attribute is intent to disrupt. Bob doesn't do that. Even though he is amazingly prolific (he says he can type something on the order of 200 words per minute), he is often responding to other posts. He gets personal, but his posts usually contain substance--actual ideas--along with his critiques of other writers on the forum.
We do have real trolls, who do disrupt threads by hammering on agendas that didn't have anything to do with the topics until they brought them up. We have one who has kept one thread focused on whether the UK is a monarchy or not for more than a month. Now THAT's trolling. Paul WV injects the same bogus "science" into every thread whether it has anything to do with the topic or not because he's obsessive and probably more than a little crazy, and that's trolling, too.
Bob also writes in the atheism forum from an atheist point of view. Those who accuse him of trollery invariably come to harass atheists by repeating the same tired arguments that have been refuted so often that we sometimes let them go out of sheer boredom. That's trolling, too.
Sound familiar?
Bob posted on President Washington's religious beliefs two months ago and has been dodging the issue since.

Atheist point of view in interesting if unscientific.
He does type well

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#1506 May 5, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Pure nonsense.
If the meaning of a term can be manipulated, as is the attempt atheists are making here, then words have no meaning.
Context DOES NOT determine the meaning of a term, when a term has a well-established, specific meaning.
Particularly, the dilution of the term here, "atheist", is a self-serving attempt. As I have explained, this is a fairly modern effort to elevate "atheism" to a more objective and rational viewpoint.
The proper course, if the person adopting terms for his viewpoint wishes to elevate the quality of his self-description, is to adopt a more descriptive term. Specifically, if he is in possession of no belief as to the non-existence of God or gods, he should utilize the proper, well-understood term for this position, which would be "agnosticism".
A Nazi would be acting improperly and dishonestly if he adopted the term "Nazi" for his viewpoint, then attempted to improve his position by simply manipulating the meaning into something other than what "Nazi" is understood to mean.
In a nutshell - "atheism" means the belief that no god exists. To claim otherwise is self-serving and dishonest.
You're totally right man. Language never evolves, which is why we all speak norman french.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#1507 May 5, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
That depends on how one defines "troll." Some seem to define it as "anyone on the internet who irritates me." I think the key attribute is intent to disrupt. Bob doesn't do that. Even though he is amazingly prolific (he says he can type something on the order of 200 words per minute), he is often responding to other posts. He gets personal, but his posts usually contain substance--actual ideas--along with his critiques of other writers on the forum.
We do have real trolls, who do disrupt threads by hammering on agendas that didn't have anything to do with the topics until they brought them up. We have one who has kept one thread focused on whether the UK is a monarchy or not for more than a month. Now THAT's trolling. Paul WV injects the same bogus "science" into every thread whether it has anything to do with the topic or not because he's obsessive and probably more than a little crazy, and that's trolling, too.
Bob also writes in the atheism forum from an atheist point of view. Those who accuse him of trollery invariably come to harass atheists by repeating the same tired arguments that have been refuted so often that we sometimes let them go out of sheer boredom. That's trolling, too.
Sound familiar?
I'm pretty sure the uk monarchy thing has been going on far longer than a month. I took a hiatus from posting here starting around the end of 2012 and it was going strong then, and when I came back a month or two ago, it was still going.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1508 May 5, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You're totally right man. Language never evolves, which is why we all speak norman french.
LOL!

Brilliant!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 min Patrick 15,027
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min DanFromSmithville 35,630
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 8 min Patrick 4,510
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 44 min An NFL Fan 20,205
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr ChristineM 255,567
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 12 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 45
News Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 13 hr ChristineM 23,879
More from around the web