Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[ding]

How come skull pilot won't comment on this?

Because he already proved Ding's prejudiced presumptions about atheists to be a lie with one name - Ayn Rand.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I kind of see it the other way around. But if it please you to see it this way. Go for it, brother.

So, Ayn Rand was a socialist?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. She was a conservative. You are a socialist. She also wasn't a big fan of Libertarians either. She thought they were discards from the left, anarchists who were amoral. Kind of like you.

Your comment wasn't directed at liberals, it was directed at atheists. However, since Ayn Rand was, herself, an atheist, your observation is inaccurate, at best, a lie, at worst.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Good Lord, you have found an exception to the rule. Alleluia!. Ayn Rand is excused. Your sorry militant atheist ass is not. How's that? Putting that aside, you are invoking Ayn Rand out of context, asshat. Go back and re-read post #319 to put this in it's proper context.

 

[ding]

.Practically speaking, the universe had a beginning. Unless of course you don't see anymore usable energy in the closed system.

You really do need to quit basing your understanding of the universe on outdated models. This is why your conclusions keep falling short. With the Quantum Gravity Loop, there is no beginning, or end to the universe, and this is accomplished without loss of available energy. With no beginning, there is no "Primary Source" - no God necessary.


Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise. It's that whole usable energy thingee.

Nope. Quantum mechanics proves this to be inaccurate.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So from what we know our current universe started 14 billion years ago but what was before that? My guess is the universe before ours was contracting after it first expanded for about 25 billion years.

The point is we don't know for sure and I'm open to all scientific theories.

The good thing about not believing a scientific theory is you won't burn in hell for eternity if you are wrong.

Quantum mechanics indicates you're on the right track.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says he's not. Do you have any evidence that tells us what happened in the 1st trillionth of a billionth of a second?

 

[ding]

Because he already proved Ding's prejudiced presumptions about atheists to be a lie with one name - Ayn Rand.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I kind of see it the other way around. But if it please you to see it this way. Go for it, brother.

So, Ayn Rand was a socialist?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. She was a conservative. You are a socialist. She also wasn't a big fan of Libertarians either. She thought they were discards from the left, anarchists who were amoral. Kind of like you.

Your comment wasn't directed at liberals, it was directed at atheists. However, since Ayn Rand was, herself, an atheist, your observation is inaccurate, at best, a lie, at worst.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's what I said and as a person who claims to absolutely know right from wrong he won't admit lying or that he was wrong.

So clearly he knows right and wrong but chooses to do wrong. So much for that book of absolute rules making him a better person.

It's real easy for a guy to be anti abortion and feel richious about it. How about not lie?

I don't believe I have ever claimed to be a saint. You and Czernobog should see me anyway that gives you pleasure. I couldn't be happier for you two.

 

[ding]

Because he already proved Ding's prejudiced presumptions about atheists to be a lie with one name - Ayn Rand.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I kind of see it the other way around. But if it please you to see it this way. Go for it, brother.

You think ayn Rand proves atheism isn't for capitalists too?

You sound like someone who has been brainwashed into thinking atheism is evil.

Ayn Rand and skull will tell you that's ridiculous but you choose to see it the other way around? You choose is the key part of the sentence.

No. I don't believe I did say that. I believe you are confused by what I said. Ayn Rand did believe that socialism worships big government and social policy. I said I believe that militant atheists worship big government and social policy and that it is based on atheism and the deification of man. Any Rand believed in objectionsim or some such bullshit, that man's self interest was noble and good or something along those lines. You guys are so desperate to win an argument you will distort anything I write to serve your purpose. I write fucking paragraphs and the best you can do is snip out little pieces to misquote and use as silly fringe arguments while you concede the rest and pretend that you addressed it to comfort your wounded and fragile egos. I have no preference for an outcome. You guys do.

Except you didn't say anything about militant atheism. You said it is , "based on atheism". There was no qualifier. You were levelling that "socialism is their religion" bullshit against atheists in general. Now that your accusation has been exposed as bullshit, you want to try to pretend you were saying something you weren't.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Let's be honest too that atheism is probably much more compatable with unregulated free market capitalism. Greed is good, every man for himself survival of the fittest

How's that working out for you?

 

[Czernobog]

Because he already proved Ding's prejudiced presumptions about atheists to be a lie with one name - Ayn Rand.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I kind of see it the other way around. But if it please you to see it this way. Go for it, brother.

So, Ayn Rand was a socialist?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. She was a conservative. You are a socialist. She also wasn't a big fan of Libertarians either. She thought they were discards from the left, anarchists who were amoral. Kind of like you.

Your comment wasn't directed at liberals, it was directed at atheists. However, since Ayn Rand was, herself, an atheist, your observation is inaccurate, at best, a lie, at worst.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Good Lord, you have found an exception to the rule. Alleluia!. Ayn Rand is excused. Your sorry militant atheist ass is not. How's that? Putting that aside, you are invoking Ayn Rand out of context, asshat. Go back and re-read post #319 to put this in it's proper context.

Fuck you, you lying piece of shit. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know dick about physics, atheism, or common sense. Don't you dare presume that you know anything about me, or my political ideology, and get a case of the ass with me, just be cause you have been exposed for the ignorant dishonest fucktard that you are.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

How come skull pilot won't comment on this?

Because he already proved Ding's prejudiced presumptions about atheists to be a lie with one name - Ayn Rand.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I kind of see it the other way around. But if it please you to see it this way. Go for it, brother.

You think ayn Rand proves atheism isn't for capitalists too?

You sound like someone who has been brainwashed into thinking atheism is evil.

Ayn Rand and skull will tell you that's ridiculous but you choose to see it the other way around? You choose is the key part of the sentence.

No. I don't believe I did say that. I believe you are confused by what I said. Ayn Rand did believe that socialism worships big government and social policy. I said I believe that militant atheists worship big government and social policy and that it is based on atheism and the deification of man. Any Rand believed in objectionsim or some such bullshit, that man's self interest was noble and good or something along those lines. You guys are so desperate to win an argument you will distort anything I write to serve your purpose. I write fucking paragraphs and the best you can do is snip out little pieces to misquote and use as silly fringe arguments while you concede the rest and pretend that you addressed it to comfort your wounded and fragile egos. I have no preference for an outcome. You guys do.

Sometimes less is more.

If you can't get a sentence why should we write a paragraph?

Yes, sometimes less is more, and sometimes you get asked a lot of questions which requires more. And sometimes the ego requires a response, but the ego always knows when a response is not really a response and it will demand payment. Sometimes that payment is taken out on someone who has nothing to do with the beating the ego took, but the ego does not care. The ego only knows that a payment is due.

 

[ding]

I kind of see it the other way around. But if it please you to see it this way. Go for it, brother.

So, Ayn Rand was a socialist?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. She was a conservative. You are a socialist. She also wasn't a big fan of Libertarians either. She thought they were discards from the left, anarchists who were amoral. Kind of like you.

Your comment wasn't directed at liberals, it was directed at atheists. However, since Ayn Rand was, herself, an atheist, your observation is inaccurate, at best, a lie, at worst.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Good Lord, you have found an exception to the rule. Alleluia!. Ayn Rand is excused. Your sorry militant atheist ass is not. How's that? Putting that aside, you are invoking Ayn Rand out of context, asshat. Go back and re-read post #319 to put this in it's proper context.

Fuck you, you lying piece of shit. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know dick about physics, atheism, or common sense. Don't you dare presume that you know anything about me, or my political ideology, and get a case of the ass with me, just be cause you have been exposed for the ignorant dishonest fucktard that you are.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I know you better than you know yourself.

 

[ding]

How come skull pilot won't comment on this?

Because he already proved Ding's prejudiced presumptions about atheists to be a lie with one name - Ayn Rand.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I kind of see it the other way around. But if it please you to see it this way. Go for it, brother.

You think ayn Rand proves atheism isn't for capitalists too?

You sound like someone who has been brainwashed into thinking atheism is evil.

Ayn Rand and skull will tell you that's ridiculous but you choose to see it the other way around? You choose is the key part of the sentence.

No. I don't believe I did say that. I believe you are confused by what I said. Ayn Rand did believe that socialism worships big government and social policy. I said I believe that militant atheists worship big government and social policy and that it is based on atheism and the deification of man. Any Rand believed in objectionsim or some such bullshit, that man's self interest was noble and good or something along those lines. You guys are so desperate to win an argument you will distort anything I write to serve your purpose. I write fucking paragraphs and the best you can do is snip out little pieces to misquote and use as silly fringe arguments while you concede the rest and pretend that you addressed it to comfort your wounded and fragile egos. I have no preference for an outcome. You guys do.

Sometimes less is more.

If you can't get a sentence why should we write a paragraph?

See what I meant about the ego? It was better that he took it out on me than someone else.

 

[Czernobog]

You really do need to quit basing your understanding of the universe on outdated models. This is why your conclusions keep falling short. With the Quantum Gravity Loop, there is no beginning, or end to the universe, and this is accomplished without loss of available energy. With no beginning, there is no "Primary Source" - no God necessary.


Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise. It's that whole usable energy thingee.

Nope. Quantum mechanics proves this to be inaccurate.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So from what we know our current universe started 14 billion years ago but what was before that? My guess is the universe before ours was contracting after it first expanded for about 25 billion years.

The point is we don't know for sure and I'm open to all scientific theories.

The good thing about not believing a scientific theory is you won't burn in hell for eternity if you are wrong.

Quantum mechanics indicates you're on the right track.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says he's not. Do you have any evidence that tells us what happened in the 1st trillionth of a billionth of a second?

Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance of quantum physics. You should really stop embarrassing yourself.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[sealybobo]

I kind of see it the other way around. But if it please you to see it this way. Go for it, brother.

So, Ayn Rand was a socialist?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. She was a conservative. You are a socialist. She also wasn't a big fan of Libertarians either. She thought they were discards from the left, anarchists who were amoral. Kind of like you.

Your comment wasn't directed at liberals, it was directed at atheists. However, since Ayn Rand was, herself, an atheist, your observation is inaccurate, at best, a lie, at worst.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's what I said and as a person who claims to absolutely know right from wrong he won't admit lying or that he was wrong.

So clearly he knows right and wrong but chooses to do wrong. So much for that book of absolute rules making him a better person.

It's real easy for a guy to be anti abortion and feel richious about it. How about not lie?

I don't believe I have ever claimed to be a saint. You and Czernobog should see me anyway that gives you pleasure. I couldn't be happier for you two.

Then your holy book of absolutes does you no good. I don't claim to be a saint either

 

[Czernobog]

So, Ayn Rand was a socialist?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. She was a conservative. You are a socialist. She also wasn't a big fan of Libertarians either. She thought they were discards from the left, anarchists who were amoral. Kind of like you.

Your comment wasn't directed at liberals, it was directed at atheists. However, since Ayn Rand was, herself, an atheist, your observation is inaccurate, at best, a lie, at worst.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Good Lord, you have found an exception to the rule. Alleluia!. Ayn Rand is excused. Your sorry militant atheist ass is not. How's that? Putting that aside, you are invoking Ayn Rand out of context, asshat. Go back and re-read post #319 to put this in it's proper context.

Fuck you, you lying piece of shit. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know dick about physics, atheism, or common sense. Don't you dare presume that you know anything about me, or my political ideology, and get a case of the ass with me, just be cause you have been exposed for the ignorant dishonest fucktard that you are.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I know you better than you know yourself.

You know dick about me.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[sealybobo]

I kind of see it the other way around. But if it please you to see it this way. Go for it, brother.

So, Ayn Rand was a socialist?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. She was a conservative. You are a socialist. She also wasn't a big fan of Libertarians either. She thought they were discards from the left, anarchists who were amoral. Kind of like you.

Your comment wasn't directed at liberals, it was directed at atheists. However, since Ayn Rand was, herself, an atheist, your observation is inaccurate, at best, a lie, at worst.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's what I said and as a person who claims to absolutely know right from wrong he won't admit lying or that he was wrong.

So clearly he knows right and wrong but chooses to do wrong. So much for that book of absolute rules making him a better person.

It's real easy for a guy to be anti abortion and feel richious about it. How about not lie?

I don't believe I have ever claimed to be a saint. You and Czernobog should see me anyway that gives you pleasure. I couldn't be happier for you two.

I guess I can't accuse you of lying just because you are illogical. After all you may believe the stuff you say even though the evidence says you are wrong.

What evidence? Skull and rand

 

[sealybobo]

I kind of see it the other way around. But if it please you to see it this way. Go for it, brother.

You think ayn Rand proves atheism isn't for capitalists too?

You sound like someone who has been brainwashed into thinking atheism is evil.

Ayn Rand and skull will tell you that's ridiculous but you choose to see it the other way around? You choose is the key part of the sentence.

No. I don't believe I did say that. I believe you are confused by what I said. Ayn Rand did believe that socialism worships big government and social policy. I said I believe that militant atheists worship big government and social policy and that it is based on atheism and the deification of man. Any Rand believed in objectionsim or some such bullshit, that man's self interest was noble and good or something along those lines. You guys are so desperate to win an argument you will distort anything I write to serve your purpose. I write fucking paragraphs and the best you can do is snip out little pieces to misquote and use as silly fringe arguments while you concede the rest and pretend that you addressed it to comfort your wounded and fragile egos. I have no preference for an outcome. You guys do.

Except you didn't say anything about militant atheism. You said it is , "based on atheism". There was no qualifier. You were levelling that "socialism is their religion" bullshit against atheists in general. Now that your accusation has been exposed as bullshit, you want to try to pretend you were saying something you weren't.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Let's be honest too that atheism is probably much more compatable with unregulated free market capitalism. Greed is good, every man for himself survival of the fittest

How's that working out for you?

Condo paid off, car paid off, zero debt, savings, property, good job. I like capitalism.

I certainly don't want communism so I know you are wrong.

Saying athiesm leads to communism is like me telling you belief in God leads to homosexuality. You being the exception of course.

 

[ding]

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise. It's that whole usable energy thingee.

Nope. Quantum mechanics proves this to be inaccurate.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So from what we know our current universe started 14 billion years ago but what was before that? My guess is the universe before ours was contracting after it first expanded for about 25 billion years.

The point is we don't know for sure and I'm open to all scientific theories.

The good thing about not believing a scientific theory is you won't burn in hell for eternity if you are wrong.

Quantum mechanics indicates you're on the right track.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says he's not. Do you have any evidence that tells us what happened in the 1st trillionth of a billionth of a second?

Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance of quantum physics. You should really stop embarrassing yourself.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-quantum-violate-law-thermodynamics.html

The likelihood of seeing quantum systems violating the second law of thermodynamics has been calculated by UCL scientists.

In two papers, published in this week's issue of Physical Review X and funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the team determined a more precise version of a basic law of physics - which says that disorder tends to increase with time unless acted on by an outside force - and applied it to the smallest quantum systems.

"The vast majority of the time, the second law of thermodynamics is obeyed. It says that a cup of hot coffee in a cold room will cool down rather than heat up, and a collection of coins all initially heads up will likely produce a mixture of heads and tails when given a shake. In fact, it is thanks to the second law of thermodynamics that we instantly recognise when we are watching a movie backwards," explained PhD student Alvaro M. Alhambra (UCL Physics & Astronomy).

The team say that situations which break the second law of thermodynamics are not ruled out in principle, but are rare.

 

[ding]

You think ayn Rand proves atheism isn't for capitalists too?

You sound like someone who has been brainwashed into thinking atheism is evil.

Ayn Rand and skull will tell you that's ridiculous but you choose to see it the other way around? You choose is the key part of the sentence.

No. I don't believe I did say that. I believe you are confused by what I said. Ayn Rand did believe that socialism worships big government and social policy. I said I believe that militant atheists worship big government and social policy and that it is based on atheism and the deification of man. Any Rand believed in objectionsim or some such bullshit, that man's self interest was noble and good or something along those lines. You guys are so desperate to win an argument you will distort anything I write to serve your purpose. I write fucking paragraphs and the best you can do is snip out little pieces to misquote and use as silly fringe arguments while you concede the rest and pretend that you addressed it to comfort your wounded and fragile egos. I have no preference for an outcome. You guys do.

Except you didn't say anything about militant atheism. You said it is , "based on atheism". There was no qualifier. You were levelling that "socialism is their religion" bullshit against atheists in general. Now that your accusation has been exposed as bullshit, you want to try to pretend you were saying something you weren't.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Let's be honest too that atheism is probably much more compatable with unregulated free market capitalism. Greed is good, every man for himself survival of the fittest

How's that working out for you?

Condo paid off, car paid off, zero debt, savings, property, good job. I like capitalism.

I certainly don't want communism so I know you are wrong.

Saying athiesm leads to communism is like me telling you belief in God leads to homosexuality. You being the exception of course.

For your sake, I hope you are right because otherwise, you have just denied yourself.

 

[ding]

So, Ayn Rand was a socialist?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. She was a conservative. You are a socialist. She also wasn't a big fan of Libertarians either. She thought they were discards from the left, anarchists who were amoral. Kind of like you.

Your comment wasn't directed at liberals, it was directed at atheists. However, since Ayn Rand was, herself, an atheist, your observation is inaccurate, at best, a lie, at worst.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's what I said and as a person who claims to absolutely know right from wrong he won't admit lying or that he was wrong.

So clearly he knows right and wrong but chooses to do wrong. So much for that book of absolute rules making him a better person.

It's real easy for a guy to be anti abortion and feel richious about it. How about not lie?

I don't believe I have ever claimed to be a saint. You and Czernobog should see me anyway that gives you pleasure. I couldn't be happier for you two.

I guess I can't accuse you of lying just because you are illogical. After all you may believe the stuff you say even though the evidence says you are wrong.

What evidence? Skull and rand

Go right ahead. No skin off my teeth.

 

[ding]

So, Ayn Rand was a socialist?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. She was a conservative. You are a socialist. She also wasn't a big fan of Libertarians either. She thought they were discards from the left, anarchists who were amoral. Kind of like you.

Your comment wasn't directed at liberals, it was directed at atheists. However, since Ayn Rand was, herself, an atheist, your observation is inaccurate, at best, a lie, at worst.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's what I said and as a person who claims to absolutely know right from wrong he won't admit lying or that he was wrong.

So clearly he knows right and wrong but chooses to do wrong. So much for that book of absolute rules making him a better person.

It's real easy for a guy to be anti abortion and feel richious about it. How about not lie?

I don't believe I have ever claimed to be a saint. You and Czernobog should see me anyway that gives you pleasure. I couldn't be happier for you two.

Then your holy book of absolutes does you no good. I don't claim to be a saint either

Only time will tell.

 

[ding]

No. She was a conservative. You are a socialist. She also wasn't a big fan of Libertarians either. She thought they were discards from the left, anarchists who were amoral. Kind of like you.

Your comment wasn't directed at liberals, it was directed at atheists. However, since Ayn Rand was, herself, an atheist, your observation is inaccurate, at best, a lie, at worst.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Good Lord, you have found an exception to the rule. Alleluia!. Ayn Rand is excused. Your sorry militant atheist ass is not. How's that? Putting that aside, you are invoking Ayn Rand out of context, asshat. Go back and re-read post #319 to put this in it's proper context.

Fuck you, you lying piece of shit. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know dick about physics, atheism, or common sense. Don't you dare presume that you know anything about me, or my political ideology, and get a case of the ass with me, just be cause you have been exposed for the ignorant dishonest fucktard that you are.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I know you better than you know yourself.

You know dick about me.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

My signature line defines you.

 

[sealybobo]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Yes I'm dumber than the sheep who believe because they want to believe, have been threatened with hell and have been brainwashed since birth.

If you were raised on an island by people who didn't believe in God what age do you think you would come up with the God concept? I don't think God is something that is naturally concluded. You may contemplate a creator but at what point would you decide a heaven was logical and not wishful thinking?

In fact the person raised by non religious people might not even give this any thought. They might instead focus all their energy on living and learning things that are knowable.

 

[Czernobog]

Nope. Quantum mechanics proves this to be inaccurate.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So from what we know our current universe started 14 billion years ago but what was before that? My guess is the universe before ours was contracting after it first expanded for about 25 billion years.

The point is we don't know for sure and I'm open to all scientific theories.

The good thing about not believing a scientific theory is you won't burn in hell for eternity if you are wrong.

Quantum mechanics indicates you're on the right track.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says he's not. Do you have any evidence that tells us what happened in the 1st trillionth of a billionth of a second?

Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance of quantum physics. You should really stop embarrassing yourself.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-quantum-violate-law-thermodynamics.html

The likelihood of seeing quantum systems violating the second law of thermodynamics has been calculated by UCL scientists.

In two papers, published in this week's issue of Physical Review X and funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the team determined a more precise version of a basic law of physics - which says that disorder tends to increase with time unless acted on by an outside force - and applied it to the smallest quantum systems.

"The vast majority of the time, the second law of thermodynamics is obeyed. It says that a cup of hot coffee in a cold room will cool down rather than heat up, and a collection of coins all initially heads up will likely produce a mixture of heads and tails when given a shake. In fact, it is thanks to the second law of thermodynamics that we instantly recognise when we are watching a movie backwards," explained PhD student Alvaro M. Alhambra (UCL Physics & Astronomy).

The team say that situations which break the second law of thermodynamics are not ruled out in principle, but are rare.

Precisely. Rare. Which means that the quantum gravity loop is well within the parameters set by physics, and a quantum loop does not lose energy, does not have end points, and does not need your mythical Primary Source, or Cause.

Checkmate.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk