Belief is Opinion

[Sinfidel]

Francis wrote

I am a Christian, most similar to that espoused by Thomas Jefferson.

I am not embarrassed by the bible. I have found truth in it, when read in the same sense as the ancient Hebrews read it.

As already pointed out, to which you, as usual, did not respond, Jefferson kept slaves, with which he had adultery that produced out of wedlock offspring. This is your "Christain" hero?

Hello, dumbass!
The Bible didn't exist in "ancient Hebrew" times, moron. Only the "Torah", i.e. Old Testament. And you claim to follow the teachings of Jesus! So you are telling us the "ancient Hebrews" believed in Jesus and the New Testament! ROTFL!

[Francis]

Sinfidel wrote

As already pointed out, to which you, as usual, did not respond, Jefferson kept slaves, with which he had adultery that produced out of wedlock offspring. This is your "Christain" hero?

Hello, dumbass!
The Bible didn't exist in "ancient Hebrew" times, moron. Only the "Torah", i.e. Old Testament. And you claim to follow the teachings of Jesus! So you are telling us the "ancient Hebrews" believed in Jesus and the New Testament! ROTFL!

A lot of times it's better to stay quiet. Then some people might think you are a thoughtful person. When some people express themselves, they leave no doubt about their ability to reason.

[Davin]

Francis wrote

A lot of times it's better to stay quiet. Then some people might think you are a thoughtful person. When some people express themselves, they leave no doubt about their ability to reason.

Don't worry, we have no doubts that you're mentally challenged.

[Francis]

Davin wrote

Don't worry, we have no doubts that you're mentally challenged.

I am often challenged. So far not on this forum though.

[Sinfidel]

Francis wrote

I am often challenged. So far not on this forum though.

Are you arrogant?

Do you think you are smarter than others?

I am pretty arrogant.

But i actually study hard (literature, politics)

so people are very dumb compared to me

.

http://www.psychforums.com/schizoid-...pic141369.html

[Michael]

Francis wrote

I am often challenged. So far not on this forum though.

Yeah I suppose it's hard to be challenged when you refuse to acknowledge anything.
You're like those monkeys. You see nothing, you hear nothing. Now we just need to work on getting you to say nothing.

[Francis]

Sinfidel wrote

.

Quote:
Are you arrogant?

Do you think you are smarter than others?

I am pretty arrogant.

But i actually study hard (literature, politics)

so people are very dumb compared to me
.

http://www.psychforums.com/schizoid-...pic141369.html

I did not say I am smarter. I stated I have not been challenged.

Despite the grandiose declarations of phony victory by the resident atheists, they, you, have failed to create a list of religious behaviors that includes traditional religions but excludes atheists.

Despite the torch waving and blinking lights of the resident atheists, the B goldfish was right

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

[Michael]

Francis wrote

Despite the torch waving and blinking lights of the resident atheists, the B goldfish was right

I haven't been participating in the simulation thread so I won't comment on how likely you are to be wrong there.

However I will say that the only way you could think your goldfish argument hasn't been completely proven illegitimate is if you put every single other person in that thread on your ignore list so you only see your posts.
Literally any other post in there is likely to completely debunk some ridiculous part of your claim otherwise.

[Davin]

Still, no doubt about stupid Francis is.

[Francis]

Michael wrote

I haven't been participating in the simulation thread so I won't comment on how likely you are to be wrong there.

However I will say that the only way you could think your goldfish argument hasn't been completely proven illegitimate is if you put every single other person in that thread on your ignore list so you only see your posts.
Literally any other post in there is likely to completely debunk some ridiculous part of your claim otherwise.

Right. Keep your comments unspecific. Unless you are talking about your desperately silly " The sky is not blue" ( so there is no God) or the fish tank glass is clear but not invisible (so there is no God).

One is caused to wonder just exactly what constitutes evidence in your world.

[Michael]

Francis wrote

Right. Keep your comments unspecific. Unless you are talking about your desperately silly " The sky is not blue" ( so there is no God)

Actually that was pointing out that you used faulty logic - the sky looks blue, therefore the sky must be blue - and stopped there, assuming you were right - rather than proper investigation, which discovered that the sky does not have a colour, but gets the appearance of different colours due to the scattering of light as it enters the atmosphere.

It's the same as another argument I made in that thread, but you conveniently ignored - theists look at something, make up an answer, ignore all other possibilities and assume they are right. More often than not, they are wrong. Even if they get it right a few times, this leads to them holding a LOT of incorrect ideas. Your blue sky was just one good example.

Whereas those who do not assume - who investigate, who don't just pick their favourite idea and go "alright, I'm good" - generally have a much better, more accurate picture of what is going on.

Funny how you didn't mention me pointing that out to you multiple times in that thread. It's almost like you purposely ignored it.

Wonder why that could be?

or the fish tank glass is clear but not invisible (so there is no God).

You're the one that said it. Don't go blaming me for your stupidity.

One is caused to wonder just exactly what constitutes evidence in your world.

Well, it's certainly not "whatever the hell makes my favourite answer", like it seems to be in yours.

[Francis]

Michael wrote

Actually that was pointing out that you used faulty logic - the sky looks blue, therefore the sky must be blue - and stopped there, assuming you were right - rather than proper investigation, which discovered that the sky does not have a colour, but gets the appearance of different colours due to the scattering of light as it enters the atmosphere.

It's the same as another argument I made in that thread, but you conveniently ignored - theists look at something, make up an answer, ignore all other possibilities and assume they are right. More often than not, they are wrong. Even if they get it right a few times, this leads to them holding a LOT of incorrect ideas. Your blue sky was just one good example.

Whereas those who do not assume - who investigate, who don't just pick their favourite idea and go "alright, I'm good" - generally have a much better, more accurate picture of what is going on.

Funny how you didn't mention me pointing that out to you multiple times in that thread. It's almost like you purposely ignored it.

Wonder why that could be?



You're the one that said it. Don't go blaming me for your stupidity.



Well, it's certainly not "whatever the hell makes my favourite answer", like it seems to be in yours.

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.

[Francis]

Davin wrote

Still, no doubt about stupid Francis is.

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.

[psychodiva]

Francis wrote

A lot of times it's better to stay quiet. Then some people might think you are a thoughtful person. When some people express themselves, they leave no doubt about their ability to reason.

Twas many a truth uttered by those............

[psychodiva]

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.