₦airaland Forum

MacDaddy01: LWKMD

x2

ghazzal: there was a movie "sunset on the beach" how do you interprete that or sunset in san diego means ...?. When you try to interprete wrongly to suit urself , its your business. Its not strange as people like you are also recorded in the Quran..... Great Book.
For the Bigbang and the mention of smoke, i read and made the assumption. never heard from anyone before. your mention of singularity: this is one of several theories because the universe keeps expanding (this is also mentioned in Quran) using a kind of reverse thinking, science claims it must have started as a small particle. what we need now is what is the "Bigbang" - that the Universe may well have begun with a violent, almighty rush of energy at about 10 billion degree Celcius. could this result in smoke?

Does the koran say what I'll have for lunch?

CrazyMan: Now you believe that evil exists right? Allow me to prove to you just like the student did to the prof...

Evil as you know, is not a positive thing that is out there in the world, but merely an absence of good.

God therefore cannot be blamed for bringing evil into existence; evil is not a thing and so was not brought into existence.

The idea that the world contains evil (i.e. certain privations of good) can thus be reconciled with the idea that it was created by a God who would not create evil; it is only the good in the world that was created, the bad is merely an absence of good.

Therefore from that theory (the prof and the student), permit me to say that evil does not exist.

And if evil doesn't exist, it means there is good somewhere and the good comes from God; which means God exist.


There we go again...then why did you choose to believe in evolution - and reject the bible?


Isn't 4.6 billion years a hell of a life time?

If a scientist can acknowledge the fact that the earth is billions of years old don't you think its absurd to remain adamant on the evolution theory...I mean why haven't any stones become animals, and why haven't animals evolved into humans?

If the theory is true why isn't there any visible evidence or proof to back it up?


Well...I would go with the brain theory, unless I want to begin a baseless argument.

Humans have brains...the theory has been proven true by medical experts, and some scientist.

We have visible proof the human brain exist...therefore further argument is baseless.


True!


Why do you think you can test God...God doesn't have to become some lab rat for you to poke a few pins into before you believe he exists.

If you claim that the existence of God is questionable, the allow me to say that scientific theory on evolution is also questionable because we're yet to see physical proofs.


Facts?

To be honest, I couldn't find any.

Do ho ho ho
You'll have to excuse me for now, crazyman, duty calls, but I'll be back...
Though I fear someone else will give you a proper spanking before I return

davidylan: Ah i actually love this line of reasoning. Now if only we could extend it to the long sleep-inducing list of stuff atheists like you constantly regale us about evolution, abiogenesis... you know those things that you all talk about already assuming that they exist without ever showing us how. You people generally start from the wrong place. It is simple, there is no way, from the very first, our resident magicians (popularly known as pseudo-scientists) could determine that evolution was true. It never happened. How could RNA just appear from primordial soup? It is unverifiable. Just like me saying a monkey is a product of millions of years of mutating bacteria that we cannot replicate. Its unverifiable, we can thus dismiss all your claims as nonsense.

di, lan david, lan, dav, I, land and davididlan landav I'd lan

Is my davidylan good enough for you? I'm still working on it.

Don't bother replying, I don't read your posts

Mr_Anony: As I said, you need to learn to understand an argument before you go about whinging. The only reason why you do not accept the possibility of omniscience is because having limited knowledge yourself, so you assume that nothing can possibly be unlimited. That is how not to go about it. Verification is for beings with limited knowledge. It is a way to make sure that our knowledge tallies with another knowledge so that we can make sense of things. If an omniscient being by definition is one that knows all things, then it just knows and verification is unnecessary for it. Immediately you define something as omniscient, you can no longer assume that there is something it doesn't know else it wouldn't be omniscient. So really your logic is circular. You start with omniscience cannot possibly exist then you define a being that is not omniscient and then conclude with omniscience cannot exist.

let me show you why your logic fails.

Premise 1: An omniscient being is one that knows everything
Premise 2: An omniscient being cannot know X
Conclusion: Therefore an omniscient being cannot exist.

(it doesn't matter what X is because the moment you define something as all-knowing, you immediately cannot make exceptions for it)

Anony, we aren't debating evil, we are trying to determine if it's possible to be omniscient. You are starting from the premise that the being already is omniscient without showing how it became so, or if it is even possible. Again, you are already assuming that the being is omniscient before showing it is possible. You are the one starting from the wrong place. This is simple, there is no way, from the very first, our magician could determine it actually was omniscient. It was never omniscient, it could never even reach that point. It's unverifiable, just like me saying there are supernatural or simply other universes out there that we cannot contact, it's unverifiable, we can thus dismiss my claims as nonsense. But this case is even worse, how can he know what he doesn't know? Do you understand?

Mr_Anony: Now to the question of thought, you were missing the point of the question. I was trying to show you how there is knowledge we cannot have. I cannot experience your thoughts as you do because to do that I will have to cease being me and become you.
All you have been able to provide are people reading information transmitted by the body. They are mere signals much like speech and facial expressions and writing. The only difference is that these signals are obtained in a different way i.e. by looking at a bunch of numbers and graphs and decoding them. At best, you have shown a new form of inferring thought but never thought itself.

This was what you asked

Mr_Anony: I hold that you are not capable of thought, would you mind verifying please? Give us evidence that you can think.

This was my response

Wiegraf: We could scan my brain. Scan my brainwaves. Recently, even memories were implanted in mice.

Can you verify the unverifiable?


Edit: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910143407.htm

If that was your aim, you should have asked the question differently, or used another one entirely. I knew what you were driving at from the get go;

Anony: I was trying to show you how there is knowledge we cannot have.

Which greatly aids my point about omniscience. From my previous post:

Wiegraf: Your (EDIT to supply context: new) question shifts the focus to experience, similar to perception which I suggested you use earlier. A more apt question to ask since you can verify my thoughts would be if you perceive the color blue the same way I do. In other words, can one verify that you experience blue the same way I do? Even that I cannot convincingly say no to due to neurosciences' advances. And if you really can't, it only aids my point. Just as you cannot know if we perceive stuff in the same way because we are separate people, god cannot know if say there's another god dictating over his own sheeple, or indeed trolling him.

The earlier post

Wiegraf: Moving on, you mean to ask if you can perceive the exact same thought I'm having, or something similar, yes? Find a better example for crying out loud.

...and earlier still

Wiegraf: I can't see where you're going with this except to help me prove my point. You're looking for an unverifiable claim often encountered but generally accepted as fact? If so, that's silly, it doesn't aid your 'argument'. Try perception though, but I'm not sure if that is unverifiable as well.

Eventually adding 'experience' your initial assertion did improve it, but by that point I wanted to hammer it into you that your initial assertion wouldn't get you were you wanted to go to, and also that it was wrong.

Mr_Anony: Also, arguing based on what science might achieve in the future is another poor way to argue. I may as well predict that men will evolve wings in the future and then argue based on that.

Did you read the links? It's technology being used today, not as accurate as it could be but still, it's in use today and is actively being developed. That statement is similar to me 5 years ago saying we'll be using SSD's in 10 years time. Unless there was some unexpected paradigm shift, it was going to happen. Companies had invested then and they are now indeed rolling them out.




Random: Then you call me illogical... You best be trollin... You make assumption upon assumption, most of them unverifiable, and inject your subjectivity into every.single.thing... You run off on unverifiable tangents as soon as you get excited... Try to keep it objective

EDIT: Quotes to provide context, clarity, grammar (sort of)

CrazyMan: I'm cool...@bolded

Ok even...if it there were man made and make believe stories, the first story by the op made a lot of sense. (The one about the prof and the student)

I know you're an atheist, so you would look for cunning ways to debunk it from the onset.

I would therefore suggest that you remove your atheism approach, and take a look at the article with a neutral mind for a second time, and I'm sure we both would come to one conclusion.

Which is?
The logic is flawed, asides from evil's points there's also this
"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?"
Risible understanding of evolution, even without directly observing evolution in a lab (it takes a hell of a lot more time than a lifetime for a species to evolve, well the big multicellular ones, bacteria etc evolve relentlessly actually, and this is very observable) and...

"Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving."

Similar to a stunt anony constantly tries to pull. If this is were a real prof... well, then again considering some of the phd holders around... Anyways, bottom line is the professor having a brain can be verified, he could take a scan, you could kill him and see for yourself, you could test his reflexes, responses and what not and compare them to other humans you know have brains, which is the standard human lol, etc. It's a testable situation. God is not testable, it cannot be verified or tested in a lab no matter what you do, therefore you have to accept it exists on faith.

And cunning? Do ho ho, no. That would indicate a desire to be dishonest, no cunning here, just facts.

CrazyMan: @wiegraf,

Are you saying the story is a make believe story, it never happened? That christians just made it up to feel much better that God exist? Is that what you're saying?

YES
But that's obvious... This copypasta is as old as the internet, that's besides the point though... It's usually not this ridiculous, as adding einstein's name to it is just silly... usually they're sensible enough to maybe find some obscure thinker's name, or just leave it nameless...

How you doing crazy?

edit: so many versions
http://www.snopes.com/religion/chalk.asp
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/e/einstein-god.htm

or just google
https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=professor+and+student+is+there+god+story&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Frankly, I don't think I've ever actually read the story It just pops up everywhere...it's so long and obviously a troll...

THE MARINE AND THE ATHEIST PROFESSOR

An atheist professor, author of several books such as “Heartland America: Why I Hate It” and “Religion: Puerile Nonsense or Dangerous Threat?” was teaching his college class about the Gay Pagan Self-Esteem Program newly mandated by the state. He then told the class that he was going to prove that there is no God. He said, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you 15 minutes!"

Five minutes went by. He kept taunting God, saying, "Here I am, God. I'm still waiting.”

Ten minutes. He continued to mercilessly trash-talk God, saying “What’s the matter, God? Don’t exist or something? That’s right, you best keep walkin’."

He got down to the last couple of minutes and a Marine just returned from the Gulf and released from active duty and newly registered in the class walked up to the professor, hit him full force in the face, and sent him flying from his platform. The professor struggled up, obviously shaken and yelled, "What's the matter with you? Why did you do that?"

The Marine replied, "God was busy watching over my buddies engaged in combat, and my buddies wounded in combat, and my other buddies killed in combat."

“What’s your point?” the professor asked, placing his elitist horn rim eyeglasses back in place.

The Marine thought a moment. “So He sent me. To punch you. Because He was busy.”

Rubbing his weak, bewhiskered chin, the tweed-clad egghead asked, “So you’re saying an omnipotent, transcendent deity was incapable of multi-tasking? Or that your pugilistic abilities somehow make a convincing argument vis-à-vis the existence of said supernatural entity?”

The Marine fumed silently as the professor continued hectoring the class in his thin, nasal, New England academic voice. “Or are we to believe Jehovah himself placed you in this classroom for the express purpose of engaging me in fisticuffs to protect his honor? Why, even this little girl wouldn’t believe such nonsense,” he said, indicating little Suzy Jones in the front row, a young girl whose father was a fireman who died the previous week rescuing fetuses from a burning abortion clinic.

Little Suzy put her puppy Patches down and ran to the front of the class, kicking the professor soundly on his shins, until the balding Marxist collapsed again to the floor.

“Ah, yes…here we see a demonstration of the brutality inherent in the, ow, monotheistic tradition,” he pointed out, as Suzy and the Marine continued to rain kicks and punches onto his prostrate form. “Do I need to, ouch, point out that God has not in any strictly, oww, discernable manner actually, personally knocked me off this platform?” he asked, clinging in a fetal position to the podium.

Eventually the two defenders of the faith grew tired and stood by, sweaty and out of breath, as the professor dragged himself up to a standing position. “Yes…well, I think I’ve made my point,” he stated, his annoying, East Coast intellectual voice full of gloating despite the lack of several of his teeth.

“I will now prove that good and evil are merely relativistic Western concepts imposed on…”

Suddenly the door burst open and an imposing figure with a full, Hestonesque beard strode manfully into the classroom, rolling up the sleeves of his flowing white robe as he approached the professor.

“All right Poindexter,” he said in a commanding, booming voice, smiting the professor with a devastating roundhouse to the jaw that sent the snobbish Postmodernist hurtling from the platform.

“Right,” said God, adjusting his robes. “Want something done right, do it yourself.”

“Thank you, sir,” exclaimed the Marine, saluting sharply.

“Sure, sure,” replied God. Glancing at his watch, he strode quickly from the classroom. “Look, I gotta run…that typhoon isn’t going to devastate Bangladesh by itself.”







Obligatory... Always relevant for this copy/paste. That last line insults einsteins memory and you should feel bad. What did he ever do to you?

These are american

A liberal muslim homosexual ACLU lawyer professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on Karl Marx.

"Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Marx and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than Jesus Christ!"

At this moment, a brave, patriotic, pro-life Navy SEAL champion who had served 1500 tours of duty and understood the necessity of war and fully supported all military decision made by the United States stood up and held up a rock.

"How old is this rock?"

The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied, "4.6 billion years, you stupid Christian".

"Wrong. It's been 5,000 years since God created it. If it was 4.6 billion years old and evolution, as you say, is real... then it should be an animal now"

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Origin of the Species. He stormed out of the room crying those liberal crocodile tears.

The students applauded and all registered Republican that day and accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. An eagle named "Small Government" flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The pledge of allegiance was read several times, and God himself showed up and enacted a flat tax rate across the country.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the gay plague AIDS and was tossed into the lake of fire for all eternity.

Mr_Anony: More hubris, more signal reading. let me put your question in focus for you because I have answered you many times earlier but it seems comprehension is really hard for you.
Let me ask you by what standards would a claim have to fall short for you to say the claim is unverifiable?
Are these standards exhaustive? If no, then you cannot know that a claim is unverifiable. If yes, how do you know this?

Please when you are through, come back to satisfying my challenge.

Think of chocolate ice-cream. Now that you have the thought in your head, give me objective proof that you are indeed thinking of chocolate ice-cream. . . . . .and please don't merely claim that you are thinking of it, I want objectively verifiable proof. I want to independently experience and interact with your thought of chocolate ice-cream exactly as you are experiencing it.

That isn't a yes or no answer. I'm not aware of the many times you've answered it, could you link the posts?
Exhaustive conditions? Wtf is that? This cannot be simpler. Can a claim be objectively verified/tested? Yes? it's falsifiable. No? It's not. What's complex about this?
Aliens exist -unfalsifiable; there could be other universes, and by definition other universes are not linked to ours, we cannot ascertain their existence, so we cannot test this, untestable thus not science. A
liens exist in this very universe - falsifiable; even if highly impractical, you should be able to access everywhere we define as 'this universe' (assuming we choose to ignore to places like singularities and they really are universes of their own), testable so it's science. Despite being invisible the IPU is pink. Conveniently unfalsifiable as we cannot see it and simultaneously ridiculous (like an omnixxx being) as how does one be invisible and have a color. All supernatural claims are unfalsifiable, as by their definition they do not adhere to natural laws, thus untestable.

You cannot verify that you know everything, in any conceivable universe. How the 4k do you know what you don't know? How do you test what you are unaware of? Similar to your orphan example above. There is no way to verify omniscience, therefore it is complete nonsense as far being objective is concerned. I will extend that and say even if restricted to this universe alone no being can, let me just make this clear, NO BEING CAN VERIFY THAT IT KNOWS EVERYTHING.

Random: Let's not consider the technical details. When looking at this from the scientific perspective, in order to know everything it would need to have a presence in every particle. Let's ignore uncertainty and waveform collapse. How is this physically possible? Where will it store/analyze this data. Can it analyze it's analyzing while analyzing that analyzing and so on, infinitely, simultaneously? Well with magic maybe, but magic is not science, you can't test magic. So physically, without supernatural, it is untenable. The idea is patently absurd...

The links above show you can verify my thoughts objectively. Even if you can't now, the technology is being built, and there's no reason to believe it can't be achieved. So yes, you can verify my thoughts, you just don't have the equipment. What is so difficult to understand here? Your question shifts the focus to experience, similar to perception which I suggested you use earlier. A more apt question to ask since you can verify my thoughts would be if you perceive the color blue the same way I do. In other words, can one verify that you experience blue the same way I do? Even that I cannot convincingly say no to due to neurosciences advances. And if you really can't, it only aids my point. Just as you cannot know if we perceive stuff in the same way because we are separate people, god cannot know if say there's another god dictating over his own sheeple, or indeed trolling him. It would explain where zeus et al went. Omniscience is nonsense, end of story...

You accuse of hubris yet you have the gall to expect me to accept your unreasonable assertions just because you say so? Look up hypocrisy as well
I grow weary of your $hit, so excuse me if I start taking you even less seriously from now.

Mr_Anony: Nonsense, All you have show is someone who was able to communicate without using the normal means of communication such as speech and facial expression. The observer was not experiencing the thoughts of his patient, he was only reading signals much like I can read signals on my computer screen so I "assume" you are typing.

The observer is only using "mental gymnastics" to assume thought.
(I'm just trying to show you how silly you guys sound when you try to say that order does not point to an order-giver)


So please my friend get back to satisfying my challenge properly. thank you

How do you expect to get away with such a blatant lie? He was reading brain signals, that's not 'normal means'. When communicating with someone I don't literally look at his brain signals to catch his drift. I don't know of anyone that does that either, do you? Even if not fully accurate at the moment, guess what, it will be. There's no theory or logic stopping it from happening, your thoughts are essentially chemicals and their interactions in your brain, and they can be mapped and objectively verified. Don't tell me your imagination is that limited. Google is your friend
m.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/31/mind-reading-program-brain-words?cat=science&type=article

When you type your response, do you see the 1's and 0's fly off? But we can test, quantify and use the information, yes? Your brain activity is the same thing. Your 'self', personality, etc, is the same thing. Deal with it.

Moving on, you mean to ask if you can perceive the exact same thought I'm having, or something similar, yes? Find a better example for crying out loud. And before any more indignation, don't forget you've not answered my simple yes or no question. Can you confirm an unverifiable claim?



I'm an immature one, apologize for calling me dishonest, 100x, then I might show you my mercy.

Mr_Anony: This has not answered my question in any way.

Let me make it clearer for you:

Think of chocolate ice-cream. Now that you have the thought in your head, give me objective proof that you are indeed thinking of chocolate ice-cream. . . . . .and please don't merely claim that you are thinking of it, I want objectively verifiable proof. I want to independently experience and interact with your thought of chocolate ice-cream.

It doesn't? So we can implant memories, in essence implanting thoughts, but you think it inconceivable that we can also track them? You have heard of neuroscience, yes? Google is your friend, enjoy
www.nature.com/news/neuroscience-the-mind-reader-1.10816

Random: That also illustrates how silly 'leaving it to god is', and other stoopid $hit like curiosity killed the cat, etc. Your mind is intangible, probably linked to your soul, we can't fix it silly science, let's pray instead, etc.
I can't see where you're going with this except to help me prove my point. You're looking for an unverifiable claim often encountered but generally accepted as fact? If so, that's silly, it doesn't aid your 'argument'. Try perception though, but I'm not sure if that is unverifiable as well.

Mr_Anony: I hold that you are not capable of thought, would you mind verifying please? Give us evidence that you can think.

We could scan my brain. Scan my brainwaves. Recently, even memories were implanted in mice.

Can you verify the unverifiable?


Edit: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910143407.htm

Mr_Anony: Lol, I don't remember coming on this forum with the aim of impressing you. Anyway moving on.....

If you don't care about ultimate truth, what knowledge do you care about then? How do you even begin to ponder omniscience?

As for your rant about non-verifiable things, As I have said earlier, it is not that truth is unverifiable in itself, rather it is because our senses are limited, omniscience is the only way that truth can best be verified. Without it, we cannot have truth. If you cannot grasp this part of my argument, then I am afraid it is your comprehension not my honesty that is the problem here as you would like to think.

If you insist that what we cannot physically verify cannot exist, then I'll urge you to take up my challenge on this thread.

https://www.nairaland.com/1053917/pink-unicorn-argument-against-religion/10

You might be able to help your friends out.

Misdirecting.. Stop it, I'm not here to view some cheap magic trick. I sort of followed that thread, you were getting pummeled there as well. Of course in anonyverse you were the victor. Mr we need logic to discover the truth, is it possible to verify the unverfiable? Yes or no pls?

Mr_Anony: You need to up your comprehension skills mate, I said; for us to know ultimate truth, we need to have omniscience which is something we do not possess because our senses are fallible. In other words, we cannot know ultimate truth because we are not omniscient. If we were omniscient, then we would know ultimate truth. Simple.
Note that in my response, I have not claimed that ultimate truth does not exist, rather I hold that it must exist however, our senses are such that we cannot recognize it.

This is very different from what you are proposing which is that a being that knows everything cannot know that it knows everything(the highlighted part is a blatant self-contradiction). Your claim is logical nonsense.

Now your argument is that omniscience is unverifiable, but then that's because our senses are not capable of verifying it.

If ultimate truth exists, then omniscience is necessary to recognize it. If omniscience does not exist, then ultimate truth cannot exist. If this is so, then we cannot have any objective truth and hence the whole idea of truth and falsehood immediately breaks down.

This is logic
I don't care about ultimate truth btw, or whatever, do see me addressing that?
Omniscience is unverifiable.
That is all...
No senses, all senses, no fairy tales, all fairy tales...
Most importantly, no nonsense...
Reading comprehension? I state it clearly, in any universe... Unverifiable
Now, if its unverifiable, how is it possible to know it exists?
And how, oh how, in the universe is that logical nonsense? Yet verifying the unverifiable is logical?
Note how many god concepts, facing the same problem, ie being unverifiable, are equally nonsensical... Abrahamic god doesn't even qualify, because he couldn't shut up and made claim upon claim of demonstrable nonsense. Yes, the FSM makes more sense, mostly because it shuts its mouth, giving us less of a chance to catch its slip ups... Yahweh is a bit like the bad guys in movies who stop to monologue when they could just kill the protagonist. In this case he stops to give the protagonist all the ammunition he'll ever need to kill him, unaware that said protagonist is already free. You know how these films usually end...
I hope my phone doesn't wake me again, well too soon at least, I hope that's enough time for you to come up with a sensible response
I'm hungry again

Edit: btw, reading your responses to muskeeto, they are even less palatable than the ones you usually use to try to feed me. They're downright terrible.. You're getting worse and worse at this

Mr_Anony: To explain what I mean, let's look at our Urhobo boy. Assuming after he has been convince that he is Urhobo, someone comes with logical proof that he is indeed Ibo by showing him that the attribute he thought was exclusive to Urhobos has actually been discovered to be also possession of Ibos i.e. a new discovery has been made. then the person goes on to present to him an attribute that he has that only Ibos can have. Now he has a new particular truth which is that he is Ibo. Now let us say another new discover comes out and it is found that he is actually Hausa and yet again another and it is found that he is Tiv. At this point the boy is waiting for the next new discovery so as to find what new tribe he must really come from. Now assuming the ultimate truth of the matter is that the boy is Tiv, he cannot know this. He will still think that there ought to be an ultimate truth outside his particular truth.

This is why no one, no entity, no anything, can know it's omniscient. Omniscience cannot be confirmed, even in magical la-la land of omnipotent (another concept that $hits all over logic). If god shows up and tells you he's sure he's omniscient then he's either not so smart, thereby immediately questioning his omniscience, or lying.

Suddenly you understand this? Could it be you've known all along? When I rant about dishonesty, it's usually because of this (not exclusively though). Not to mention you know why I'm ranting, but will come up with some silly excuse for my rant, like claim I'm ranting because I disagree with you, piling on the dishonesty.

I ate some terrible food, I think I'm going to puke

Mayhaps the bot has malfunctioned?

I could be wrong, but very little was gained from all this.
All this, over an unverifiable spaghetti monster, and one wonders why the strife in this world when we have myriad religions each with their own unverifiable claims.
That's supposed to be part of FSM's point, actually. So, yeah, at least a demonstration of the FSM's effectiveness was gained

Every single thing is subjective then?
Why would anyone do that?
Oh why?

Atheist:-D:
Yeah but the smart ones will never follow their God to the grave. Or rather they make poor suicide bombers etc.

Doesn't matter of course, as they won't be going themselves, some seem to have no problem with having others go for them. Some do so unwittingly. An ignorant might be reading/listening to him, and think that sounds cool. No need to tell the preacher, but his faith is made stronger, delusion increased. Later, he's blowing himself up. Had he never heard the original speech he would have been less deluded, less susceptible to whoever was now manipulating him. The $hit experts are more dangerous. Proper, full education of the ignorant so they know to make their own choices wisely may be the only cure.
Btw religious peeps, I'm only fooling around
Maybe...
Besides the same arguments apply to any ideology taken to extremes, that includes state run personality cults/religions like stalinism, our dear fatherism, etc. Muslims though, emphasize dying for god (not sure, but I think so, 72 virgins, etc), not just living, they might be more dangerous than average

Area_boy: Well, we can all see how stubborn these apologetics can get. Even in the face of so much counter argument/overwhelming rebuttal and king kong size debunking, he still cant see past his silly foundational bias.

Sad part is, he is actually one of the "good" ones. Bothering to research a little (poorly done as it seems) and using that to defend what he believes in.

The ones we should worry about are them that have no clue of anything else in life except what their holy book tells them. What else can make a man blow up himself and believe he is doing a the will of an "all loving" god?

Sick

This brings something I've been mulling over to the fore of my mind, the more sophisticated ones may be more dangerous. The ones with the ability to wrap what is essentially $hit and pass it off as chocolate greatly influence the ignorant. As the ignorant have never had proper chocolate, they think the $hit they consume is quite good, despite the diarrhea and other issues it introduces. So much so they eventually think $hit is chocolate, and chocolate is $hit.
Eventually when either is confronted, there's the issue of one not willing to admit one's been eating $hit due to pride. Also some of these pridefull ones are patently aware that they are consuming $hit, but as they would look silly and loose some status if they admit it, they do everything in their power to make sure others share their misery.. Etc etc

musKeeto: Just a basic question first. Why would a perfect ultimate being need rest?

This post made me lol for a bit
I'm supposed to be sleeping..stup.id addictive internet

musKeeto: Need I say more? May the b1tch die and all who pray for her suffer!!!

Lol, what's this about?
And eastern europeans don't exactly have shining reputations as well, showing just how bad our situation is
There's a saying that's something like 'a people get the government they deserve'

Mr_Anony: Lol interesting how you refer to God as a "voyeuristic sky tyrant objectively" Admit it, you are biased.

As I have said, the bible doesn't tell me of any sky tyrant. If you are going to argue over something, first learn what it is and then argue based on that. Putting your spin on it first before arguing is how not to argue. Also, conferring "objectivity" upon yourself and calling your opponent dishonest for not submitting to your spin is equally unhelpful.

I will not dignify your question with an answer until you ask it with some measure of dignity and civility.

Do as I say, unquestionably and against your will = me being a dictator. Extend that, I start using my power to oppress you = tyrant. Abrahamic god oppresses a lot of people, even his own followers actually, eg muslims oppress jews and xtians. Homosexuals, pig eaters, people work on sabbath, etc, the gamut of people who have no desire to comply with him, and are decent, good people just trying to live their often productive lives undisturbed, perhaps while giving something back. Abrahamic god = tyrant

Viewer? I watch you all day even when you don't want me to, while doing the deed? That = Viewer. You could say from his pov it's like us watching discovery, but then why the ban on homosexuality and masturbation when they harm no one? I'd guess because he's not a fan of balls touching, or pipis in general hence the desire minimize viewing that (on a random note, something like 99 % of dudes and a lot of women as well masturbate, how do y'all, ie abrahamic theists, manage? Do you apologize immediately after?). So yeah, abrahamic god more or else = Viewer

Suit yourself if you've got other things to do bro, I'm off to bed actually. Thanks

soccerinfo9ja: This is one solid write up i admire. These people who claim there is a God somewhere watching over and protecting them have no practical evidence to prove there is any supernatural being that exist in some other universe unknown to man. They rely on faith to communicate with their imaginary god and justify their claims with a book written by mere men to bring other and instill fear in the heart of the populace. Please people should stop being so ignorant and hypocritical and accept the fact that we live in this world so randomly and their's nothing watching over us as any acclaim god is imaginary and the book backing his whole existence is mythical. End of story.

I find it odd that that post resonates with a few people, I wasn't even thinking much when I wrote it. Guess a lot of us are exasperated

Mr_Anony: Lol, it is funny how you want to define my terms for me, even funnier how you call me dishonest because I don't accept your definition.

I know of no "xtian tyrant" neither do I know of any "anonyverse god" all I can tell you about is the nature of God (Jehovah). If you are interested, let's talk. If you are not, too bad.

I call you dishonest for other reasons, and you know this. You illustrate one them in this very post by knowing said reasons, then purposely assigning my claim to another reason.

This isn't about your terms, it's about the mainstream ones. Not your interpretions, the statements in the 'holy' books.

I know of a voyeuristic sky tyrant, objectively so if you followed the holy books. Deal with it. Is it all 3 omnixxx?



Edited

Mr_Anony: Lolololol, someone is pissed......Your question still doesn't deserve an answer (and wrongfully accusing me of dishonesty won't help you). Go deal with your problems then come back when you are ready to have a civil discussion.

I'm usually pissed, nothing new. But you mean go deal with your issues then come back so you can bull$hit around some more. Dealing with my issues would probably take forever, so let's move on. And you are dishonest.

Do you have answers good ser? Let's start with is the official xtian tyrant, or god if you prefer, all 3 omnixxx? Note, I could care less about anonyverse god

Mr_Anony: I thought you were asking someone else.
.....I don't know of any sky-tyrants. If you are going to lace your questions with spite, then you don't deserve an answer.

Drop the silly indignation. I should be pissed, especially as you seem to have multiple personality disorder or something similar. Say one thing in one thread, shift to another or even stay in the same one, say the reverse of what you stated earlier, or conveniently forget that you made the statement. ALL.THE.TIME. After all that you accuse me of being dishonest, seemingly without any compunction.(To be fair, I had better things to do, and should have been doing them). I'll give your imaginary friend respect when I deem the concept worthy of respect. As it stands now, it's evil personified. Yes it doesn't exist, but the concept represents a lot of nefarious, insidious $hit, certainly not worthy of respect. I've been toning down the language I use to describe sky-tyrant mostly out of respect for you, no need to do that anymore.
Btw, butthurt for god? I can see why you relate with our piss loving brothers and their shenanigans
When you do find honesty, please answer the questions if you will good ser.

If I had my way, I'd never sleep. This perfectly designed, nonsensical body (and certain er.. recreational persuits) prevent that though

@platt, ok, let me know when

Deep Sight: [1] - - - An eternal uncaused element

[2] - - - Trancendental

[3] - - - Being

[4] - - - Purpose

Let me ramble on here, and go back. Probably been already said though. Your problem is with using FSM in a broader context? Ok. I would think pointing out all these things are unnecessary (except maybe 1, isn't 3 related to 1?) would aid in putting the ID debate to rest. Is that what you're saying? Burden of proof/unfalsifiable claims are related to any scientific argument though, so FSM still stays relevant so long as one makes unfalsifiable claims in a scientific setting.

You could point out they (ID supporters) are making a lot of baseless assumptions, satire is an effective tool. By illustrating how absurd unfalsifiable claims can be, it demonstrates why they shouldn't be in a science class. While this does not attack one of the core elements of ID, which is that an intelligent being is necessary to explain how this universe was created, it illustrates how tenuous their positions are. Properties attributed to their designer are unfalsifiable (magical even) and therefore useless in a scientific setting.

Note, FSM was put together particularly for the ID crowd. The ID crowd do claim this intelligent being has untestable properties, thus FSM is apt for describing how silly that is as far as science is concerned. Deist crowd is not ID crowd, deists try to do away with the supernatural, no? Thus their need to illustrate the necessity of an intelligence behind creation, which I suppose is your focus. Op used the argument against anony, who pushes a supernatural god, so it's valid in his context. FSM would still be valid against deist gods of course, that is if any particular version claimed to have supernatural properties.

edited

^^^^
I'm still not sure what that was all about, he seemed to have been answered oh so long ago..
Is it time to gloat yet?

Anony, answer me...