Forum
»
More General Categories
»
Religion and Politics
»
fkin LMFAO @ Atheism, only retards think it’s a logical worldview.
01-12-2018, 10:35 AM
-
#181
- Alchem
- Registered User
-
- Alchem
- Registered User
- Join Date: Feb 2011
- Location: Egypt
- Age: 33
- Posts: 9,450
- Rep Power: 13784
-
-
Originally Posted By sy2502⏩
"I don't know what caused it, therefore it had no cause."When a photon hits a glass surface, some photons will be reflected and others absorbed. What causes a photon to be reflected? What causes the other photon to be absorbed?
PS: if you have an answer to this, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
PS: if you have an answer to this, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
amazing logic.
01-12-2018, 11:41 AM
-
#182
- sy2502
- Registered User
-
- sy2502
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2010
- Location: United States
- Posts: 13,396
- Rep Power: 131822
-
-
Originally Posted By Alchem⏩
LOL you don't actually know what I am talking about, do you?"I don't know what caused it, therefore it had no cause."
amazing logic.
amazing logic.
Follow my 2018 competition prep here:
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=175566421&p=1547462721#post1547462721
01-12-2018, 12:11 PM
-
#183
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By Alchem⏩
Missed this little gem.there are two types of proof, deductive and inductive, both are valid, both can be used in one proof, if you doubt the particular movement of the hand then what's the point in debating anything? you can always doubt anything.
No, we don't call things "inductive proofs". There is deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning....inductive reasoning is not associated with proofs. Proofs are deductive in nature, say a proof you find in Euclids Elements, perhaps a^2+b^2=c^2 for right triangles (Book 1, prop. 47). Inductive reasoning is something like "I've witnessed that 1000 out of 1001 balls in a particular room are red. I conclude that the 1001st ball, which I have not observed yet, willprobablybe red." lol that's not a proof at all.
If you are thinking of proof by mathematical induction......that is actually deductive reasoning, not inductive. So we would call that a (deductive) proof. Your statement about inductive proofs doesn't make sense.
Originally Posted By Alchem⏩
Person A:Nothingthat is infinite can be concluded."I don't know what caused it, therefore it had no cause."
amazing logic.
amazing logic.
Person B: Well no, here is a concrete set of numbers that is clearly infinite and also concludes. Just look at it yourself.
Person A: I stand by my conclusion....nothingthat is infinite can conclude.
amazing logic indeed.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
01-12-2018, 12:12 PM
-
#184
- Mr Beer
- Here's beer
-
- Mr Beer
- Here's beer
- Join Date: Nov 2004
- Location: In the bar
- Posts: 40,965
- Rep Power: 141991
-
-
Originally Posted By RiceBrah93⏩
You provided no proof of that assertion.Choose what you want to believe, all I said is successful people are successful in the first place because they have God in their lives.
Originally Posted By RiceBrah93⏩
I didn't say most of them put on a façade, learn to read. Also, LOL @ no accolades, the whole point of following protocol in public is to retain one's public image. No you don't get another award right there but managing image is important to public figures.And you said, most of them just put on a facade in public, so I asked you why would they pretend to believe in God if they have no money or accolades to be gained from it?
Originally Posted By RiceBrah93⏩
You never actually asked that question, but you have not demonstrated that 'most successful people are not atheists', so go ahead and define 'successful'. I hope that category is broader than Denzel Washington. Then go ahead and prove that atheists are underrepresented in that category. Then finally, go ahead and explain how that's an argument for the existence of God.And you still haven't answered my question. Does it hurt you deep inside that most successful people aren't actually atheists and truly believe in God? Would it make you feel any better if they were like you?
Originally Posted By RiceBrah93⏩
If you don't want people to argue with you, don't post silly, insulting messages in a public forum. Pretty pathetic of you to start whining about it now just because your worthless arguments are getting demolished.So that's my belief, feel free to keep being cynical and contradict me as always like a true atheist does.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
01-12-2018, 02:00 PM
-
#185
- acrawlingchaos
- Registered User
-
- acrawlingchaos
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 49
- Posts: 16,672
- Rep Power: 150407
-
-
Originally Posted By Alchem⏩
All you've done is be condescending and insulting to those that have a very different belief structure than your own. Your contempt is rather obvious in your thread title. If you think calling others irrational and stupid makes you seem intelligent or morally superior. You've missed the mark.Why do atheists think quantum science proves that subatomic particles don't follow causation for some reason? not sure if willful ignorance or sophistism.
So far atheists in this thread claimed.
"You can't rely on observation to prove anything"
"Some things have no cause"
What an intelligent rational people fkin LOL
So far atheists in this thread claimed.
"You can't rely on observation to prove anything"
"Some things have no cause"
What an intelligent rational people fkin LOL
If you want a discussion cool. If you want to be an a**hole, than your opinion can just as easily be dismissed.
01-12-2018, 02:36 PM
-
#186
- Alchem
- Registered User
-
- Alchem
- Registered User
- Join Date: Feb 2011
- Location: Egypt
- Age: 33
- Posts: 9,450
- Rep Power: 13784
-
-
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
Again you're misconstruing my argument, {-infinity, 0} has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, I'm not sure why that's not getting through your head.Person A:Nothingthat is infinite can be concluded.
Person B: Well no, here is a concrete set of numbers that is clearly infinite and also concludes. Just look at it yourself.
Person A: I stand by my conclusion....nothingthat is infinite can conclude.
amazing logic indeed.
Person B: Well no, here is a concrete set of numbers that is clearly infinite and also concludes. Just look at it yourself.
Person A: I stand by my conclusion....nothingthat is infinite can conclude.
amazing logic indeed.
You're basically saying since in mathematics we can use a set {0,+infinity} then it is possible to count from zero to infinity, of course this is retarded, and it's not possible to count from zero to infinity, infinity is never ending by definition. Now to understand my point against infinite regress, you can apply the same reasoning to this set {-infinity, 0}, the "-infinity" can never reach 0 (as in counting), because infinity by definition is never ending.
01-12-2018, 03:17 PM
-
#187
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By Alchem⏩
You're wasting your time at this point. Your terrible argument has no merit, and if you can't see that, it's like I'm arguing with a brick. Let the readers of your flawed argument judge it on their own terms. I'm also wasting time addressing invalid point after invalid point you bring up.....no longer worth it.Again you're misconstruing my argument, {-infinity, 0} has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, I'm not sure why that's not getting through your head.
You're basically saying since in mathematics we can use a set {0,+infinity} then it is possible to count from zero to infinity, of course this is retarded, and it's not possible to count from zero to infinity, infinity is never ending by definition. Now to understand my point against infinite regress, you can apply the same reasoning to this set {-infinity, 0}, the "-infinity" can never reach 0 (as in counting), because infinity by definition is never ending.
You're basically saying since in mathematics we can use a set {0,+infinity} then it is possible to count from zero to infinity, of course this is retarded, and it's not possible to count from zero to infinity, infinity is never ending by definition. Now to understand my point against infinite regress, you can apply the same reasoning to this set {-infinity, 0}, the "-infinity" can never reach 0 (as in counting), because infinity by definition is never ending.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
01-12-2018, 04:06 PM
-
#188
01-12-2018, 05:39 PM
-
#189
- Maestro
- отличнo!
-
- Maestro
- отличнo!
- Join Date: Oct 2002
- Location: New Mexico, United States
- Posts: 58,400
- Rep Power: 203698
-
-
Originally Posted By cman1787⏩
I'm not an atheist, but which godisthe right one? There is clearly a right and wrong answer to this since we know that there are a handful of gods, including the christian god, jehovah, that will torture you for all eternity (like the sadist he is) for not worshipping them.sometimes i want to bang my head against a wall when atheist try to refute with the "but which god is the right one" argument
01-12-2018, 06:20 PM
-
#190
01-12-2018, 06:35 PM
-
#191
- Mr Beer
- Here's beer
-
- Mr Beer
- Here's beer
- Join Date: Nov 2004
- Location: In the bar
- Posts: 40,965
- Rep Power: 141991
-
-
Originally Posted By cman1787⏩
"But which god" is not an argument against the existence of god, it's generally more about highlighting the absurdity of many religious positions "My omnipotent Bronze-age sadist is the only real god, all the others are just superstition!"sometimes i want to bang my head against a wall when atheist try to refute with the "but which god is the right one" argument
A close tangent is trying to get people to define what they're talking about when they say 'God'. ITT we can see a lot of arguments from theists, none of which speak to a specifically Abrahamic god yet that's the god they believe in.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
01-13-2018, 05:19 AM
-
#192
- VinnyPazRules
- Chitcoin sell
-
- VinnyPazRules
- Chitcoin sell
- Join Date: Jul 2009
- Posts: 14,060
- Rep Power: 37269
-
-
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
Check out good will hunting over here...Missed this little gem.
No, we don't call things "inductive proofs". There is deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning....inductive reasoning is not associated with proofs. Proofs are deductive in nature, say a proof you find in Euclids Elements, perhaps a^2+b^2=c^2 for right triangles (Book 1, prop. 47). Inductive reasoning is something like "I've witnessed that 1000 out of 1001 balls in a particular room are red. I conclude that the 1001st ball, which I have not observed yet, willprobablybe red." lol that's not a proof at all.
If you are thinking of proof by mathematical induction......that is actually deductive reasoning, not inductive. So we would call that a (deductive) proof. Your statement about inductive proofs doesn't make sense.
Person A:Nothingthat is infinite can be concluded.
Person B: Well no, here is a concrete set of numbers that is clearly infinite and also concludes. Just look at it yourself.
Person A: I stand by my conclusion....nothingthat is infinite can conclude.
amazing logic indeed.
No, we don't call things "inductive proofs". There is deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning....inductive reasoning is not associated with proofs. Proofs are deductive in nature, say a proof you find in Euclids Elements, perhaps a^2+b^2=c^2 for right triangles (Book 1, prop. 47). Inductive reasoning is something like "I've witnessed that 1000 out of 1001 balls in a particular room are red. I conclude that the 1001st ball, which I have not observed yet, willprobablybe red." lol that's not a proof at all.
If you are thinking of proof by mathematical induction......that is actually deductive reasoning, not inductive. So we would call that a (deductive) proof. Your statement about inductive proofs doesn't make sense.
Person A:Nothingthat is infinite can be concluded.
Person B: Well no, here is a concrete set of numbers that is clearly infinite and also concludes. Just look at it yourself.
Person A: I stand by my conclusion....nothingthat is infinite can conclude.
amazing logic indeed.
01-13-2018, 05:24 AM
-
#193
- VinnyPazRules
- Chitcoin sell
-
- VinnyPazRules
- Chitcoin sell
- Join Date: Jul 2009
- Posts: 14,060
- Rep Power: 37269
-
-
Originally Posted By Mr
What if I told you they are all the same God?"But which god" is not an argument against the existence of god, it's generally more about highlighting the absurdity of many religious positions "My omnipotent Bronze-age sadist is the only real god, all the others are just superstition!"
A close tangent is trying to get people to define what they're talking about when they say 'God'. ITT we can see a lot of arguments from theists, none of which speak to a specifically Abrahamic god yet that's the god they believe in.
A close tangent is trying to get people to define what they're talking about when they say 'God'. ITT we can see a lot of arguments from theists, none of which speak to a specifically Abrahamic god yet that's the god they believe in.
01-13-2018, 05:30 AM
-
#194
- VinnyPazRules
- Chitcoin sell
-
- VinnyPazRules
- Chitcoin sell
- Join Date: Jul 2009
- Posts: 14,060
- Rep Power: 37269
-
-
Originally Posted By Mr
When a turtle lays it's eggs how do they all know to bury them in the sand when they've never done it before? How do they know to return to the same beach they were born even 20 years later? How do the hatch lings know to head for the water and not go the other way?You provided no proof of that assertion.
I didn't say most of them put on a façade, learn to read. Also, LOL @ no accolades, the whole point of following protocol in public is to retain one's public image. No you don't get another award right there but managing image is important to public figures.
You never actually asked that question, but you have not demonstrated that 'most successful people are not atheists', so go ahead and define 'successful'. I hope that category is broader than Denzel Washington. Then go ahead and prove that atheists are underrepresented in that category. Then finally, go ahead and explain how that's an argument for the existence of God.
If you don't want people to argue with you, don't post silly, insulting messages in a public forum. Pretty pathetic of you to start whining about it now just because your worthless arguments are getting demolished.
I didn't say most of them put on a façade, learn to read. Also, LOL @ no accolades, the whole point of following protocol in public is to retain one's public image. No you don't get another award right there but managing image is important to public figures.
You never actually asked that question, but you have not demonstrated that 'most successful people are not atheists', so go ahead and define 'successful'. I hope that category is broader than Denzel Washington. Then go ahead and prove that atheists are underrepresented in that category. Then finally, go ahead and explain how that's an argument for the existence of God.
If you don't want people to argue with you, don't post silly, insulting messages in a public forum. Pretty pathetic of you to start whining about it now just because your worthless arguments are getting demolished.
01-13-2018, 05:35 AM
-
#195
01-13-2018, 05:50 AM
-
#196
- BulkingIsHard
- Registered Bigot
-
- BulkingIsHard
- Registered Bigot
- Join Date: Aug 2016
- Posts: 12,670
- Rep Power: 70015
-
-
Didn't read but the nonedgelord atheists/agnostics believe one simple thing: due to a lack of evidence it cant be proven or disproven, therefore nothing can be concluded until there is sufficient evidence.
For example: the beginning of the universe is believed to be based on the big bangtheorydue to a number of observations. This theory can change if new evidence is found or previous observations are nullified. On the other hand religious individuals believe in an omnipotent deity that exists outside of time and space who was able to create the entire universe with their very mind. Proof? There is no absolute proof, only faith, which the skeptical perceive as blind loyalty.
For example: the beginning of the universe is believed to be based on the big bangtheorydue to a number of observations. This theory can change if new evidence is found or previous observations are nullified. On the other hand religious individuals believe in an omnipotent deity that exists outside of time and space who was able to create the entire universe with their very mind. Proof? There is no absolute proof, only faith, which the skeptical perceive as blind loyalty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_decline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse#By_absorption
01-13-2018, 07:06 AM
-
#197
Originally Posted By Maestro⏩
theconceptionsof god are many and varied, doesn't mean the various religions worship different godsI'm not an atheist, but which godisthe right one? There is clearly a right and wrong answer to this since we know that there are a handful of gods, including the christian god, jehovah, that will torture you for all eternity (like the sadist he is) for not worshipping them.
01-13-2018, 08:40 AM
-
#198
- Maestro
- отличнo!
-
- Maestro
- отличнo!
- Join Date: Oct 2002
- Location: New Mexico, United States
- Posts: 58,400
- Rep Power: 203698
-
-
Originally Posted By cman1787⏩
Fact of the matter is, there ARE different gods and the Abrahamic ones in particular are not too fond of people worshiping other gods.theconceptionsof god are many and varied, doesn't mean the various religions worship different gods
01-13-2018, 12:00 PM
-
#199
01-13-2018, 12:18 PM
-
#200
- Mr Beer
- Here's beer
-
- Mr Beer
- Here's beer
- Join Date: Nov 2004
- Location: In the bar
- Posts: 40,965
- Rep Power: 141991
-
-
Originally Posted By VinnyPazRules⏩
For many religious positions, they are mutually exclusive. If you believe in a more general god, you don't suffer from that particular problem.What if I told you they are all the same God?
Originally Posted By VinnyPazRules⏩
Evolved behavioural patterns.When a turtle lays it's eggs how do they all know to bury them in the sand when they've never done it before? How do they know to return to the same beach they were born even 20 years later? How do the hatch lings know to head for the water and not go the other way?
EDIT
The same beach thing, I don't know. Salmon and other animals exhibit similar behaviour. I believe it's hypothesised that birds use magnetic fields to navigate vast distances, perhaps it's something like that. Your best bet is to check the internet to find out...it's possible no-one knows.
BTW 'no-one knows' is not proof of god.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
01-13-2018, 12:19 PM
-
#201
- djfuzzy
- ┬─┬ ︵ /(.□. \）
-
- djfuzzy
- ┬─┬ ︵ /(.□. \）
- Join Date: Jul 2007
- Location: United States
- Posts: 18,282
- Rep Power: 54389
-
-
Originally Posted By Jh1479⏩
Thought about it, still no proof. What do?It is real, you can prove it to yourself if you just think about it.
O|||||||O Official Jeep Brah Crew O|||||||O -creator-
USMC
★cVc★
01-13-2018, 12:39 PM
-
#202
Originally Posted By djfuzzy⏩
Either something came from nothing or something always existed, both don't make sense and theres no other possibilities.Thought about it, still no proof. What do?
So there has to be a God thats not subject to this contradiction.
01-13-2018, 12:56 PM
-
#203
01-13-2018, 02:56 PM
-
#204
- Mr Beer
- Here's beer
-
- Mr Beer
- Here's beer
- Join Date: Nov 2004
- Location: In the bar
- Posts: 40,965
- Rep Power: 141991
-
-
Originally Posted By Jh1479⏩
There are plenty of things which are not intuitively obvious and yet are factually correct. Have you ever examined quantum mechanics or relativity? Both of these sound like utter bollocks because the world that we observe simply doesn't behave in this manner. And yet they are correct.Either something came from nothing or something always existed,both don't make senseand theres no other possibilities.
So there has to be a God thats not subject to this contradiction.
So there has to be a God thats not subject to this contradiction.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
01-13-2018, 03:12 PM
-
#205
Originally Posted By Mr
The same reasoning applies to quantum mechanics, even quantum mechanics would have had to have ultimately come from nothing, or alternatively always existed.There are plenty of things which are not intuitively obvious and yet are factually correct. Have you ever examined quantum mechanics or relativity? Both of these sound like utter bollocks because the world that we observe simply doesn't behave in this manner. And yet they are correct.
Why does even quantum mechanics exist instead of not exist?
01-13-2018, 03:30 PM
-
#206
- Mr Beer
- Here's beer
-
- Mr Beer
- Here's beer
- Join Date: Nov 2004
- Location: In the bar
- Posts: 40,965
- Rep Power: 141991
-
-
Originally Posted By Jh1479⏩
You're missing my point I think, what I'm saying is that just because something sounds unlikely doesn't make it wrong, as can be demonstrated by looking at some of the odder areas of physics discovered in the 20th century. I agree that the origin of the universe is unknown, either some kind of reality has always existed or the universe arose from nowhere and both options sound unlikely on the face of it. That doesn't mean they are impossible or wrong though.The same reasoning applies to quantum mechanics, even quantum mechanics would have had to have ultimately come from nothing, or alternatively always existed.
Why does even quantum mechanics exist instead of not exist?
Why does even quantum mechanics exist instead of not exist?
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
01-13-2018, 03:37 PM
-
#207
Originally Posted By Mr
Its more than unlikely though, its fundamentally unsolvable, which is why you need to default to something divine. (non religious BTW).You're missing my point I think, what I'm saying is that just because something sounds unlikely doesn't make it wrong, as can be demonstrated by looking at some of the odder areas of physics discovered in the 20th century. I agree that the origin of the universe is unknown, either some kind of reality has always existed or the universe arose from nowhere and both options sound unlikely on the face of it. That doesn't mean they are impossible or wrong though.
01-13-2018, 03:42 PM
-
#208
- djfuzzy
- ┬─┬ ︵ /(.□. \）
-
- djfuzzy
- ┬─┬ ︵ /(.□. \）
- Join Date: Jul 2007
- Location: United States
- Posts: 18,282
- Rep Power: 54389
-
-
Originally Posted By Jh1479⏩
You have provided zero proof with this and you’ve fallen directly in to the “god of the gaps” logic by placing yourideaof what god is or may be in to the role of something you don’t understand - the creation of the universe. For some of us, that isn’t a good enough answer.Either something came from nothing or something always existed, both don't make sense and theres no other possibilities.
So there has to be a God thats not subject to this contradiction.
So there has to be a God thats not subject to this contradiction.
O|||||||O Official Jeep Brah Crew O|||||||O -creator-
USMC
★cVc★
01-13-2018, 04:47 PM
-
#209
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts