Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Czernobog]

...and whaddoyakno? ding has been firing off responses, and suddenly he doesn't want to answera simple question...

 

[sealybobo]

The Bible nailed the Great Migration

The Bible nailed the great flood

The account of genesis was recorded in the symbols of the first written language 4500 years ago

The Bible nailed that there was a beginning.

The Bible nailed evolution.

The Bible nailed DNA.

The Bible nailed that we came from dust.

The Bible nailed the Nature of Man.

The Bible nailed the morality progression.

The Bible nails an internal locus of control.

The Bible nails that the Spirit of God is within us all.

The Bible nails the saeculum cycle.

The Bible nails successful behaviors.

The Bible nails failed behaviors.

Now tell me what three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt has got as a justification to be taken seriously? Your problem is that you don't take it seriously. You have got it in your head that you can't be wrong about anything. I don't have a problem with your non-belief. I have a problem with your attitude and behavior towards my belief.

It's because you guys have been much more in your face the last 17 years. Much more dangerous

I see. You blame others for your behavior.

EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL ALERT

So, to be clear, in your opinion, a person's actions will, and should have absolutely zero effect on the actions of others? It is your contention that one's choices should not have consequences, and, if they do, then the blame for such consequences falls on the person, or persons reacting to the bad behaviour, and not the person who behaved badly? That is really your position?

That was some mental masturbation you did to arrive at a position to justify an external locus of control. So let me put this down quickly, yep, that's right, your failed behaviors should not cause me to behave poorly. I am accountable for my behaviors, no one else.

Huh. Impressive how you nevber react to the actions of others. Tell me, are you a parent?

They never react to the actions of others.

 

[ding]

How does that impact the matter that does have mass?

It makes it irrelevant in regard to the creation of the universe. Your entire premise is that, because there is a finite limit to the amount of mass in the universe, there is a limit to the ability to convert matter to energy. Thus, it is your contention that, due to the law of Conservation, the universe must have an end, and by inference, a beginning.

Unfortunately, with the discovery of massless matter, that premise is no longer valid. So, no loss of mass, no end, no beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Lol, how does that impact the application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics on matter that has mass?

Since you keep asking the same question without comprehension, I'll let you take time to do a bit of study, and see if you can't discover how this affects your theory that the universe "must" have a beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question. How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.

The only dumbass here is you. Allow me to ask the question again. In fact, let's start simple.

Do you agree that matter is converted to energy at the cost of mass?

Not necessarily because mass and energy are equivalent. The loss would occur in either transaction. Do you believe that gravitons prevent the loss of usable energy in a closed system when matter is converted to energy or vice versa?

 

[ding]

It's because you guys have been much more in your face the last 17 years. Much more dangerous

I see. You blame others for your behavior.

EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL ALERT

So, to be clear, in your opinion, a person's actions will, and should have absolutely zero effect on the actions of others? It is your contention that one's choices should not have consequences, and, if they do, then the blame for such consequences falls on the person, or persons reacting to the bad behaviour, and not the person who behaved badly? That is really your position?

That was some mental masturbation you did to arrive at a position to justify an external locus of control. So let me put this down quickly, yep, that's right, your failed behaviors should not cause me to behave poorly. I am accountable for my behaviors, no one else.

Huh. Impressive how you nevber react to the actions of others. Tell me, are you a parent?

They never react to the actions of others.

Clearly you do not understand the concept of locus of control or its implications.

 

[Czernobog]

It makes it irrelevant in regard to the creation of the universe. Your entire premise is that, because there is a finite limit to the amount of mass in the universe, there is a limit to the ability to convert matter to energy. Thus, it is your contention that, due to the law of Conservation, the universe must have an end, and by inference, a beginning.

Unfortunately, with the discovery of massless matter, that premise is no longer valid. So, no loss of mass, no end, no beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Lol, how does that impact the application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics on matter that has mass?

Since you keep asking the same question without comprehension, I'll let you take time to do a bit of study, and see if you can't discover how this affects your theory that the universe "must" have a beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question. How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.

The only dumbass here is you. Allow me to ask the question again. In fact, let's start simple.

Do you agree that matter is converted to energy at the cost of mass?

No necessarily because mass and energy are equivalent. The loss would occur in either transaction. Do you believe that gravitons prevent the loss of usable energy in a closed system when matter is converted to energy or vice versa?

Well, you tell me. How much energy would be lost in converting 0 mass to energy?



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[sealybobo]

...and whaddoyakno? ding has been firing off responses, and suddenly he doesn't want to answera simple question...

I'm still waiting to hear if anyone here truly believes they are a living god. Because from what I'm hearing they think after this shell they live in currently expires, they claim that their "soul" moves on to a place of paradise where they live forever, never unhappy or sad or sick ever again. In essence these people we are talking to are gods themselves. Isn't that how you take it?

And so ding shouldn't expect me to understand his faith because I'm not a god myself so I can't possibly understand.

But then isn't ding telling me that if I want to become a god I have to first believe like he does. But I can't because I'm not a god. Ding says you have to be one to feel it. So how do I become a god with a soul so I can feel it? Is it basically I just have to want it bad enough I will be willing to suspend all logic?

 

[ding]

...and whaddoyakno? ding has been firing off responses, and suddenly he doesn't want to answera simple question...

What are you yammering about? You are the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[ding]

Lol, how does that impact the application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics on matter that has mass?

Since you keep asking the same question without comprehension, I'll let you take time to do a bit of study, and see if you can't discover how this affects your theory that the universe "must" have a beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question. How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.

The only dumbass here is you. Allow me to ask the question again. In fact, let's start simple.

Do you agree that matter is converted to energy at the cost of mass?

No necessarily because mass and energy are equivalent. The loss would occur in either transaction. Do you believe that gravitons prevent the loss of usable energy in a closed system when matter is converted to energy or vice versa?

We'll, you tell me. How much energy would be lost in converting 0 mass to energy?



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That is not the pertinent question. Why do we still have usable energy if the universe is eternal? My point has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe was created. It only has to do with it being impossible for the universe to be eternal or infinite. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes that and gravitons have nothing to do with it.

 

[sealybobo]

I see. You blame others for your behavior.

EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL ALERT

So, to be clear, in your opinion, a person's actions will, and should have absolutely zero effect on the actions of others? It is your contention that one's choices should not have consequences, and, if they do, then the blame for such consequences falls on the person, or persons reacting to the bad behaviour, and not the person who behaved badly? That is really your position?

That was some mental masturbation you did to arrive at a position to justify an external locus of control. So let me put this down quickly, yep, that's right, your failed behaviors should not cause me to behave poorly. I am accountable for my behaviors, no one else.

Huh. Impressive how you nevber react to the actions of others. Tell me, are you a parent?

They never react to the actions of others.

Clearly you do not understand the concept of locus of control or its implications.

A person with an internal locus of control believes that he or she can influence events and their outcomes, while someone with an external locus of control blames outside forces for everything.

Can you explain what your point is with this?

 

[ding]

So, to be clear, in your opinion, a person's actions will, and should have absolutely zero effect on the actions of others? It is your contention that one's choices should not have consequences, and, if they do, then the blame for such consequences falls on the person, or persons reacting to the bad behaviour, and not the person who behaved badly? That is really your position?

That was some mental masturbation you did to arrive at a position to justify an external locus of control. So let me put this down quickly, yep, that's right, your failed behaviors should not cause me to behave poorly. I am accountable for my behaviors, no one else.

Huh. Impressive how you nevber react to the actions of others. Tell me, are you a parent?

They never react to the actions of others.

Clearly you do not understand the concept of locus of control or its implications.

A person with an internal locus of control believes that he or she can influence events and their outcomes, while someone with an external locus of control blames outside forces for everything.

Can you explain what your point is with this?

That you don't produce results.

 

[Czernobog]

Since you keep asking the same question without comprehension, I'll let you take time to do a bit of study, and see if you can't discover how this affects your theory that the universe "must" have a beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question. How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.

The only dumbass here is you. Allow me to ask the question again. In fact, let's start simple.

Do you agree that matter is converted to energy at the cost of mass?

No necessarily because mass and energy are equivalent. The loss would occur in either transaction. Do you believe that gravitons prevent the loss of usable energy in a closed system when matter is converted to energy or vice versa?

We'll, you tell me. How much energy would be lost in converting 0 mass to energy?



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That is not the pertinent question. Why do we still have usable energy if the universe is eternal? My point has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe was created. It only has to do with it being impossible for the universe to be eternal or infinite. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes that and gravitons have nothing to do with it.

No, it doesn't, and your refusal to answer the question about energy conversion proves that you know you're wrong, and just don't want to admit it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[sealybobo]

...and whaddoyakno? ding has been firing off responses, and suddenly he doesn't want to answera simple question...

What are you yammering about? You are the pot calling the kettle black.

What question(s) didn't he reply to? Don't be all over the place. Give him some clear questions you're waiting for an answer on.

And don't ask about locus.

 

[sealybobo]

That was some mental masturbation you did to arrive at a position to justify an external locus of control. So let me put this down quickly, yep, that's right, your failed behaviors should not cause me to behave poorly. I am accountable for my behaviors, no one else.

Huh. Impressive how you nevber react to the actions of others. Tell me, are you a parent?

They never react to the actions of others.

Clearly you do not understand the concept of locus of control or its implications.

A person with an internal locus of control believes that he or she can influence events and their outcomes, while someone with an external locus of control blames outside forces for everything.

Can you explain what your point is with this?

That you don't produce results.

What results are you looking for? What is the test or challenge?

 

[ding]

My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question. How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.

The only dumbass here is you. Allow me to ask the question again. In fact, let's start simple.

Do you agree that matter is converted to energy at the cost of mass?

No necessarily because mass and energy are equivalent. The loss would occur in either transaction. Do you believe that gravitons prevent the loss of usable energy in a closed system when matter is converted to energy or vice versa?

We'll, you tell me. How much energy would be lost in converting 0 mass to energy?



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That is not the pertinent question. Why do we still have usable energy if the universe is eternal? My point has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe was created. It only has to do with it being impossible for the universe to be eternal or infinite. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes that and gravitons have nothing to do with it.

No, it doesn't, and your refusal to answer the question about energy conversion proves that you know you're wrong, and just don't want to admit it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What exactly do gravitons have to do with matter which has mass? How do gravitons prevent heat loss when matter is converted to energy?

 

[sealybobo]

I doubt you did, more than likely you had notional faith; superficial faith. I suspect if you are honest with yourself you will admit that you really didn't believe even when you thought you believed. But I could be wrong. Either way it does not change my point. You would not be expected to know and understand a faith that is not yours.

This is funny. I didn't have enough or the right kind of faith. Lol. Sorry I can't fully believe the unbelievable

The "No true scotsman" fallacy:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

The Ding version:

Person A: "Nobody with faith becomes an atheist."
Person B: "But I had faith, and I became an atheist."
Person A: "Ah yes, but nobody with _true_ faith becomes an atheist."

Funny thing is that when those atheists were Christians, Ding would have been praising them for their _true_ faith. Ding only recategorizes faith as "not true" after the change to atheism. How convenient. Perhaps Ding can give us an objective standard to judge whether faith is "true" in the here and now, without waiting to see what the future brings. But I doubt it.

You seem to have taken it out of context. I would not expect an atheist to understand my faith anymore than I would be able to understand a faith that was not my own.

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen F Roberts

 

[sealybobo]

It has to do with the fact that mass is not required to convert matter to energy. With gravitons, matter is converted without any loss of energy, or mass. There is no begining, there is no end. Your universal model is not necessary. So, no need for God.

How does that impact the matter that does have mass?

It makes it irrelevant in regard to the creation of the universe. Your entire premise is that, because there is a finite limit to the amount of mass in the universe, there is a limit to the ability to convert matter to energy. Thus, it is your contention that, due to the law of Conservation, the universe must have an end, and by inference, a beginning.

Unfortunately, with the discovery of massless matter, that premise is no longer valid. So, no loss of mass, no end, no beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Lol, how does that impact the application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics on matter that has mass?

Since you keep asking the same question without comprehension, I'll let you take time to do a bit of study, and see if you can't discover how this affects your theory that the universe "must" have a beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question. How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.

How does this prove god exists?

 

[ding]

Huh. Impressive how you nevber react to the actions of others. Tell me, are you a parent?

They never react to the actions of others.

Clearly you do not understand the concept of locus of control or its implications.

A person with an internal locus of control believes that he or she can influence events and their outcomes, while someone with an external locus of control blames outside forces for everything.

Can you explain what your point is with this?

That you don't produce results.

What results are you looking for? What is the test or challenge?

Im not looking for anything from you. I am making an observation about you and projecting your performance from that. It's called motivational based interviewing and all of the major corporations use it.

 

[Czernobog]

The only dumbass here is you. Allow me to ask the question again. In fact, let's start simple.

Do you agree that matter is converted to energy at the cost of mass?

No necessarily because mass and energy are equivalent. The loss would occur in either transaction. Do you believe that gravitons prevent the loss of usable energy in a closed system when matter is converted to energy or vice versa?

We'll, you tell me. How much energy would be lost in converting 0 mass to energy?



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That is not the pertinent question. Why do we still have usable energy if the universe is eternal? My point has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe was created. It only has to do with it being impossible for the universe to be eternal or infinite. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes that and gravitons have nothing to do with it.

No, it doesn't, and your refusal to answer the question about energy conversion proves that you know you're wrong, and just don't want to admit it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What exactly do gravitons have to do with matter which has mass? How do gravitons prevent heat loss when matter is converted to energy?

Okay. Let's try this another way. Let us assume that every bit of matter containing mass in the entire universe has been converted into energy. Is it, at that point still possible to convert matter to energy?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

How does that impact the matter that does have mass?

It makes it irrelevant in regard to the creation of the universe. Your entire premise is that, because there is a finite limit to the amount of mass in the universe, there is a limit to the ability to convert matter to energy. Thus, it is your contention that, due to the law of Conservation, the universe must have an end, and by inference, a beginning.

Unfortunately, with the discovery of massless matter, that premise is no longer valid. So, no loss of mass, no end, no beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Lol, how does that impact the application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics on matter that has mass?

Since you keep asking the same question without comprehension, I'll let you take time to do a bit of study, and see if you can't discover how this affects your theory that the universe "must" have a beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question. How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.

How does this prove god exists?

It won't for you. Nothing will.

 

[sealybobo]

Since you keep asking the same question without comprehension, I'll let you take time to do a bit of study, and see if you can't discover how this affects your theory that the universe "must" have a beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question. How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.

The only dumbass here is you. Allow me to ask the question again. In fact, let's start simple.

Do you agree that matter is converted to energy at the cost of mass?

No necessarily because mass and energy are equivalent. The loss would occur in either transaction. Do you believe that gravitons prevent the loss of usable energy in a closed system when matter is converted to energy or vice versa?

We'll, you tell me. How much energy would be lost in converting 0 mass to energy?



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That is not the pertinent question. Why do we still have usable energy if the universe is eternal? My point has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe was created. It only has to do with it being impossible for the universe to be eternal or infinite. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes that and gravitons have nothing to do with it.

Maybe it isn't eternally the way it is now but time and space are eternal, no? 90 trillion years ago time and space existed but this universe may not have existed. If not, does that mean god didn't exist 90 trillion years ago? Was he not born yet?

The truth is God was born when we made him up.