ay to falcon and cuppycakes... you r wack!
Wow, the uneducated opinion of a semi-literate wingnut deals as devastating a blow as a wounded gnat on downers. However, in the interest of having irrationality go head-to-head with rationality, let's see what else you've got.
but let me start off with saying i dont believe in any god besides myself in a sense...
ill tell you why too in my opinion...
Well, after scrolling down your post to see where you go on to tell us why you believe that you're "g-d in a sense", the nearest applicable explanation you gave was "if ppl can be stupid why cant their be a stupid god who thinks he is right ..." So, what you're saying there is that, since you're stupid, you've posited a stupid 'g-d' and it's you. Facinating theory; of course there's no evidence to support extrapolating your personal stupidity onto either a stupid or intelligent supernatural entity. That would be a false generalization and anthropomorphistic, (attempt to personify any attribution of human characteristics). Then you added some pseudo-angelomorphism, (a human being appearing in the form of an angel/divine being). It's not clear whether or not you're claiming to be "Koalemos", the Greek 'g-d' of stupidity.
ive read alot of your posts to christians... and ill say you dont know the story and context of the bible 100% you may know the basic outline but if you are going to put other ppl down shouldn't you completely know what your talking about?
My guess would be that you may have read some of the responses posted to xtians but, haven't understood a significant percentage of the content posted in reply to bible-thumping quotes. The context of the jumbled fictions and platitudes of the various 'bibles' consists of the general ignorance of the writers from 2,000 or less years ago, pervasive superstitions of the time period, fear and a mix of plagiarisms. Anything coming out of the combination of those main unerlying factors will result in a hodge-podge of mythological fiction which absolutely requires acceptance on the basis of blind faith alone, (eschewing an evidentiary basis altogether because hey, there doesn't seem to be any valid evidence to support faith-based religious claims).
... u go around here like u two are smarter then everyone else cus you dont believe...
No, I "go around here" posting that irrationality isn't "smarter" than rationality and there are volumes of evidence to support such a contention, (whereas there is no valid evidence to support a contention that irrationality is "smarter" than rationality). Belief, (or 'faith'), without evidence is irrational and not "smarter" than rational evidence, (which requires
no faith/belief in the functionality of evidence).
well think about this is the world around you is so stupid couldnt it of been made the stupid god they worship???
if ppl can be stupid why cant their be a stupid god who thinks he is right and made this place?
Thusfar, you're the first I'm aware of to suggest that "koalemos", (greek g-d of stupidity), stupidly made everything stupid, (in 'his' image). Like I said, it's a facinating non-theory that lacks supporting evidence, (namely because there are people more intelligent than some stupid ones extant and, what is truly stupid is largely nonfunctional).
if u look at the evidence there was something that was eternal never created....
Exactly what "evidence" are you vaguely referring to? If you're going to falsely attribute things without supporting evidence itself, don't bother. That's would just be building illusions upon delusions. Your a priori assumption that "there was something that was eternal never created" is a speculation which lacks evidence to support it.
... you cant disprove the other why do you keep going on? you dont know that is not false!!! ... but u sound so ignorant acting like u r right when you go no proof...
Those who repeat that common logical fallacy have no understanding of the burden of proof requirement. Others are not required to 'disprove' specious claims made; those who make the initial claim are constrained by the burden of proof requirement to support their claim with evidence, (although if the challenger does have evidence which would invalidate the claimant's initial claim, they can present it if they choose to).
but you may see stupid points in it and go ahead and point those out...
Thanks for the unneeded 'permission' to do so, anticipating your okay in this regard, I proceded anyway.
and dont u think religious is like that too ppl didnt come up with these stories out of nowhere... its from what they observed and felt...
No one said those "stories" came out of nowhere. It's been mentioned that they arose out of fear, jumbled fictions and platitudes stemming from the general ignorance of the writers from 2,000 or less years ago, pervasive superstitions of the time period, fear and a mix of plagiarisms. Anything coming out of the combination of those main unerlying factors will result in a hodge-podge of mythological fiction which absolutely requires acceptance on the basis of blind faith alone, (eschewing an evidentiary basis altogether because hey, there doesn't seem to be any valid evidence to support faith-based religious claims).
Community Forum
Topic: To those who dont believe!!!!!!!!!!!! (Read 14779 times)
June 02, 2015, 09:15:41 pm
