Belief is Opinion

[Sinfidel]

Francis wrote

Despite the protestations of the resident atheists, whether we are part of an elaborate simulation is being explored by mainstream scientists

Have you ever had simulated sex, Francis? How do you tell it from real sex?

And those Christ meat wafers - are they real or simulated?

[ghoulslime]

Francis wrote

In objectivity and in all humility, I have never in my life met anyone who wasn't smarter than me on some issue.

As for this forum, and restricted to the issues I have raised, I have not thus far encountered any atheist smarter than I on these issues. Including you.

Exclaims the ninny who has been demonstrated wrong by pretty much every active member of this forum!

That's some incredible arrogance from one of the dumbest people who has every posted on RA.

[ghoulslime]

Francis wrote

The idea that B goldfish "used faulty logic" is basically ridiculous. He describes evidence - the flat pane of clear glass. the fixed and comfortable temperature, the regular introduction of food, the absence of predators. To say this is insufficient evidence from which to form a conclusion is just nonsense. There is an old saying "You can't argue with success". The B goldfish was right. Clearly he had enough evidence to suspect what he did. I doubt there is any amount of evidence which would cause you to suspect the existence of a Creator.

The sky color thing is just foolish. A person could, I suppose, maintain that the color of a red car isn't red, because that means the car is rejecting the color red by reflecting it away, so the "real" color of the car is everything but red. That would be a profoundly silly argument.

No, whatever the mechanism, the color of a thing is the color we see. That is the "real" color of everything.

"Make up everything"? Do fish tanks exist? Do goldfish exist in them? Are they often temperature controlled? Do people feed their fish? Are they made with glass? Do people often keep predators out of these tanks? Look, the analogy was made based upon indisputable facts of common knowledge. It was further based upon the reality that certain people, and perhaps fish, are better than others at sensing or perceiving underlying truths.

You are claiming it is a faulty analogy only because B's suspicions are based in reality and are superior to those of the atheist fish. You don't want to face the fact that there are, by analogy (and in reality) people in the world with better senses and perceptions than you.

Look, you may imagine whatever you want, but you have not touched this analogy. It forces a conclusion you don't want to face so you claim error that does not exist.

Keep polishing that turd, Francis! If you keep pretending like it is not a fallacious analogy, it will eventually be an amazing parable for us to all witness your astounding wisdom!

[Michael]

Francis wrote

The sky color thing is just foolish. A person could, I suppose, maintain that the color of a red car isn't red, because that means the car is rejecting the color red by reflecting it away, so the "real" color of the car is everything but red. That would be a profoundly silly argument.

Again you demonstrate not only a lack of knowledge, but a clear disinterest in gaining knowledge. You've gotten a half-assed understanding, decided your worldview, and have assumed you are correct - giving very little thought into discovering the actual causes.

You are referring in one instance to to a physical pigment of red, reflecting red wavelengths and absorbing others, and in the other to how light wavelengths reflect and refract when they encounter objects such as gas molecules.

The atmosphere does not have a 'blue' pigment that absorbs other colours and reflects blue. If that were the case, the sky would only ever be blue. The sky has no actual colour.

They are two seperate situations. Yet, as I have addressed multiple times now - you don't bother learning what is actually going on. You get a bit of information, figure out what explanation best suits your tastes and declare ' I know what is going on and I am right!', then stop trying to actually find out what is happening, and fully understanding the situation - like with colour.
Even if by some fluke you luck onto the answer once, twice, you're still going to hold a LOT of incorrect views, and this is what we are seeing.

You have yet to address this at any point.


Frankly you should be embarrassed by the way you approach facts and truth, not boldly and wrongly telling everyone about how awesomely correct you always think you are are and then trying to claim you are humble.

[Davin]

Francis wrote

In objectivity and in all humility, I have never in my life met anyone who wasn't smarter than me on some issue.

As for this forum, and restricted to the issues I have raised, I have not thus far encountered any atheist smarter than I on these issues. Including you.

It's funny how stupid people tend to think they are the smartest person. No seriously, it's hilarious.

[Kinich Ahau]

I was thinking the same thing but wasn't sure how to express it. The lack of awareness is truly mind numbing.

[ghoulslime]

Michael wrote

Again you demonstrate not only a lack of knowledge, but a clear disinterest in gaining knowledge. You've gotten a half-assed understanding, decided your worldview, and have assumed you are correct - giving very little thought into discovering the actual causes.

You are referring in one instance to to a physical pigment of red, reflecting red wavelengths and absorbing others, and in the other to how light wavelengths reflect and refract when they encounter objects such as gas molecules.

The atmosphere does not have a 'blue' pigment that absorbs other colours and reflects blue. If that were the case, the sky would only ever be blue. The sky has no actual colour.

They are two seperate situations. Yet, as I have addressed multiple times now - you don't bother learning what is actually going on. You get a bit of information, figure out what explanation best suits your tastes and declare ' I know what is going on and I am right!', then stop trying to actually find out what is happening, and fully understanding the situation - like with colour.
Even if by some fluke you luck onto the answer once, twice, you're still going to hold a LOT of incorrect views, and this is what we are seeing.

You have yet to address this at any point.


Frankly you should be embarrassed by the way you approach facts and truth, not boldly and wrongly telling everyone about how awesomely correct you always think you are are and then trying to claim you are humble.

Francis is truly a thick one! He can't even admit that the sky is not colored blue.

[ghoulslime]

Davin wrote

It's funny how stupid people tend to think they are the smartest person. No seriously, it's hilarious.

I actually laughed out loud this morning, when I was getting out of bed. I suddenly thought about Francis and his antics on our forum, and found it seriously humorous. I am starting to wonder if his problems go beyond religious fanaticism. We could be dealing with a serious mental illness here.

[Francis]

The basic problems on this forum are 1) the atheists here have no ability to see their words from a distance, in the same way the sensible masses of humanity would see them, and 2) the atheists here appear to think that logic and reason do not require any discipline, that they are inherent.

None of my arguments has been touched, but the above two atheist characteristics prevents them from noticing.

[Davin]

ghoulslime wrote

I actually laughed out loud this morning, when I was getting out of bed. I suddenly thought about Francis and his antics on our forum, and found it seriously humorous. I am starting to wonder if his problems go beyond religious fanaticism. We could be dealing with a serious mental illness here.

I'm starting to think that it's just a bizarre comedy act. He comes here acting like an idiot in hilarious ways just to make us laugh.

[Davin]

Francis wrote

The basic problems on this forum are 1) the atheists here have no ability to see their words from a distance, in the same way the sensible masses of humanity would see them, and 2) the atheists here appear to think that logic and reason do not require any discipline, that they are inherent.

None of my arguments has been touched, but the above two atheist characteristics prevents them from noticing.

See? That's what I'm talking about. Hilarious.

[Kinich Ahau]

Another one for the gem thread. He does make me laugh.

He's very cute. Do you think we will be allowed to keep him?

[Francis]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Another one for the gem thread. He does make me laugh.

He's very cute. Do you think we will be allowed to keep him?

If you were honest with yourself, you would realize that your laughter comes with a twinge of self doubt

[Davin]

I appreciate the dedication to the arrogant, self-unaware, idiotic, religious character, I think that's what really sells the comedy.

[Sinfidel]

Francis wrote

The basic problems on this forum are 1) the atheists here have no ability to see their words from a distance,

Gee Francis, I took my netbook and my Meade telescope to the park, but no matter how far away I got, the words still looked the same!
Do you perhaps have a magical "seer glass", like that Moron, er, Mormon guy used to translate those Egyptian hieroglyphs on the Golden plates,?
Could it be you see things differently because of your little delusion problem?
Modern medicine can do wonderful things, but there's always Benny Hinn or Morris Cerrulo!