Insulting atheists for a change.

Here, Cloudy

Now tell me again about those 8% of atheists...

"Agnostic definition is - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."

Snark, Islam copied some of the Christian beliefs...and perverted it some...just like some so called Christian denominations did some perversions of their own...just because there are some elements of one on the other doesn't prove either right...or wrong.

The only non Christian civilizations of significance on Eart were China and pre WWII Japan....good luck on living in such an environment. 

That makes so much sense, Shark.

I always knew the Sumerians were moslems.

Plum, speaking to Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Anti-theists etc at least they have a consistent belief/argument, even it is right or wrong.

You claim to have 100% belief in everything. You have the intellect of a Mcdonald's staff member that has watched too much of the Discovery channel 

Like a schizophrenic who constantly tries to prove and disprove his/their own arguments at the same time. There is no trail of thought, just contradiction. 

Maybe you can create one login profile for each of your schizo identities? At least then you can be more consistent with your arguments for each.  

P-s You never responded to the below post, that I put on the Christmas thread? What do you think? 

Jan 02, 2020, 15:32

Rugby Legend

5064 posts

Jan 01, 2020, 13:43

It's crazy the amount of entirely stupid PHDs I've met in my time. Scientists love to look down on religious people but in my experience they're often the dumbest people I've met.  Had a braai with a math PHD once and the guy was, no bullshit, unable to turn a burger patty over. Prodded and poked at it with a fork until he was basically braaing mince meat. This same tit was telling me he ignores religious people because they're not worth his time.

Just memorized his way through school and uni. These are some of the idiots we rely on to explain the universe. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The braai conversation went something like this- 

Plum said: "Have you seen any aliens lately?"

Math PHD said: "No, not really".

Plum: What is your job? I flip burgers at Mcdonalds.

Math PHD: I work at NASA. Our department discovers new planets across the universe. Other departments work on creating satellites that are sent to moons and planets within the solar system. Some departments investigate gravity, anti-matter, as well as general physics created by Einstein.

Plum: Scientists are stupid, why don't you believe in God?

Math PHD: I never said I do not believe in the possibility of a creator or an afterlife, I just do not follow man-made religions

Plum: "Ramblings similar to Beeno". 

Math PHD: Sorry I don't usually speak about religions with religious people. 

Plum: I am not religious either, I just sound like a religious person. 

Math PHD: So you are not religious, but you support theology? 

Plum: People with PHD's are amongst the stupidest people I have ever met.

Math PHD: Sorry, I have to leave soon, if I prod the hamburger to make it thinner, it should cook faster. Then I will eat and drive at the same time. Bye!

Shark

Superposition. 

If all of the options are available , then I am able to believe that all of them are 100% possible.

If/when one of those possibilities turns out to be the correct one, the possibility of the others being the correct one collapses. 

If you ask Mrs Shark to bring either burgers or pies home for dinner. There possibility of her brigning burgers is 100% and the possibility of her brining pies is 100%. Both are 100% possible, since both are available, she can afford them both and she she is able to bring either one home.

You have a 50% chance of having pies and and 50% chance of having burgers for dinner. 

Did I lose you?

And no, Shark.

The guy was in finance. He was drooling over my girl, wearing cardigan but too much of a vagina to  make a move. He made some passive aggressive comment at some point, I asked him what he meant, he shrank and didn't say much the rest of the evening.

We made some fun of him, played music, had a great time with our other mates and went to a nightclub after.

Sorry to pop  your bubble Shark, here's a des cription of this Greek democracy you revere:

.....

Size and make-up of the Athenian population[edit]

Estimates of the population of ancient Athens vary. During the 4th century BC, there might well have been some 250,000–300,000 people in Attica.[1] Citizen families could have amounted to 100,000 people and out of these some 30,000 would have been the adult male citizens entitled to vote in the assembly. In the mid-5th century the number of adult male citizens was perhaps as high as 60,000, but this number fell precipitously during the Peloponnesian War.[18] This slump was permanent, due to the introduction of a stricter definition of citizen described below. From a modern perspective these figures may seem small, but among Greek city-states Athens was huge: most of the thousand or so Greek cities could only muster 1000–1500 adult male citizens each; and Corinth, a major power, had at most 15,000.[19]

The non-citizen component of the population was made up of resident foreigners (metics) and slaves, with the latter perhaps somewhat more numerous. Around 338 BC the orator Hyperides (fragment 13) claimed that there were 150,000 slaves in Attica, but this figure is probably no more than an impression: slaves outnumbered those of citizen stock but did not swamp them.[20]

.....

Now that's just great isn't it.....30000 voters in a population of 300000 residents, with 150000 slaves....and of course no votes for women, or any males who weren't part of the club.

Shart, Christianity predates Islam by about 1/2 a millennium. Today's  geography has got nothing to do with it. 

Ancient Greeks/Romans invented many things including Capitalism and Democracy. 

I would not expect a slave to get a vote, but it is a step in the right direction from the Ancient Egyptian pyramid builders. Better than having a hereditary king of later eras that followed in AC as well. 

I agree in principle that not all people should have a Democratic vote, for example, people that can't read or have an IQ lower than 70% etc. 

History of democracy - McGill CS

"Ancient Greeks/Romans invented many things including Capitalism and Democracy. "

Lol...they should have patented it...

Shark, 

Yeah yeah man. 

Claim ignorance. 

Draad,

History of patent law - Wikipedia

" But even while we keep redefining it, love remains this enduring literary concept that consoles us when we try to tackle the cosmic void. Carl Sagan pulled readers out of the darkest, most despairing chapters of his books about the infinite abyss with famous quotes like, "For small creatures such as we, the vastness is bearable only through love," but what's really left of love after some time in the cold hard light of science?"

Here, Shark

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-probability-and-vs-possibility/

I rate your Mickey Dee's education is not likely to see you through this link, but it explains the difference possibility and probably. 

My spider sense says you'll run from this like cancer because it shows that this statement from you is completely wrong. You conflated possibility with probability.

I mistakenly assumed the difference was common knowledge since I innately understand it.

Question is, are you gonna manbe up and admit it? Wait, spider sense kicking in again...is says "Evasive bullshit answer incoming...duck!"

"So plum you believe 300%?  

Rugby Legend

5131 posts

Here, Shark

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-probability-and-vs-possibility/

I rate your Mickey Dee's education is not likely to see you through this link, but it explains the difference possibility and probably. 

My spider sense says you'll run from this like cancer because it shows that this statement from you is completely wrong. You conflated possibility with probability.

I mistakenly assumed the difference was common knowledge since I innately understand it.

Question is, are you gonna manbe up and admit it? Wait, spider sense kicking in again...is says "Evasive bullshit answer incoming...duck!"

"So plum you believe 300%?  

DA ... let me explain something to you. I thought you'd have worked it out on your own ... but I guess I was being too optimistic. I forgot there for a moment that you're a little on the slow side ... so here goes.

God created us all ... even you ... however ... you must remember that He also created the fly ... the rat ... and the bed lice ... and ... bear in mind that even the turds on the ground are His design. In all this He never proclaimed to know each one by it's name.

You sadly fall in that bracket.

Terribly sorry, DA.

Now I know you're probably going to get your nuts in a knot over my comment ... chasing that fragile blood pressure of yours up to heights unknown ... and I know you'll be tempted to post all kinds of repetitive, hurtful things about what a scumbag I am ... how you know my character to be flawed and that I'm an angry man lashing out ... that I'm a poor example of an Christian and that I fall way short of God's requirements ... bah, blah, blah ... but before you do ... turn to Matthew 7:23 and go have yourself a lookee see what it says there.

You are not the apple of His eye ... you are on the same level as the turd, the lice, the fly and the rat ... and when lines are drawn in the sand, you are looked at as an enemy.

Are you getting this?

Only when you declare Him as Lord and Saviour are you reconciled.

Kapeesh??

Dumb Ass!!

Now say you're sorry!!

Shark,

Here, two questions....

1) How possible (%) is it for Mrs Shark to bring back burgers for dinner?

2) In the burger or pies scenario, how probable (%) is it that she will bring back burgers for dinner?

This is not difficult.

God 100% possibile

Cold physical universe 100% possibile

Anything in between 100% possible

...33% Probability for each category to be correct/real.

"Well, i'm open to a cold physics based universe but also to a created one...and everything inbetween."

"Dumb Plum you are continuing to prove that you are just stupid. What does possible and probable have to do with your knowledge of maths other than disproving your own argument once again? A primary school student has better mathematical ability than you.

Saying something is 100% possible is just mincing words. We were talking about maths and probability of beliefs. 1+1 = 2 anywhere in the universe. It is a mathematical fact. Just like opposite values (e.g. religion or atheism) cannot both be 100% correct at the same time. 

I have nothing further to say on this matter, other than I would not let you pack the hamburgers for a hamburger lunch.  It was also tongue and cheek, about the lunch 

To decide the probability of equally possible outcomes occurring, you divide 100 by the amount of possibilities.

The above sentence perfectly illustrates the necessity of those two DIFFERENT words.

And it is perfectly apt to use both terms when talking about one's idea of reality . In fact, you have to.

And this...

"We were talking about maths and probability of beliefs."

...means something enentirely different to what your intending to say.

But yes, rather swim away Sharkie. 

"DA ... let me explain something to you"

This statement …. coming from a very sad individual...... who does specific hand exercises in the gym...….. because he believes that it is extremely funny to crush some stranger's hand..... when they first meet and shake hands

It must give you a real kick inflicting that kind of pain to a complete stranger hey CC..... maybe hurting some kids along the way as well...……. you know...… to show them all what a strong uncle or Oom you are..

So much to prove to the world hey CC...…..still..... at your age...….. that is such a shame bro

To think that you actually mention that as one of the reasons why you use that certain gym training technique for your hands.......…... shows exactly what type of a low despicable character you genuinely are......

Says everything I need to know about the real you...…….. because it's not the first time you have described hurting other people...….. what a class act you are

What a thoroughly pathetic, desperate and sad person you must be...…..

DA

You're reaching man.

What I understood from what CC posted was just him saying that those exercises give you a firm handshake as a side benefit.

You think he a was actually talked about injuring someone's hand?

It's a moot point. Who would ever shake Klown's hand?

Back at work, Rooi?

Yup, been back since the 2nd. 

I don't take my leave in December or January (other than the period between Xmas and New Year). I don't have kids at school anymore so I prefer to take my leave in June. Every alternate June I spend 3 weeks in the Kruger Park and the alternate years I do an overseas trip . . . so it's either winter in the KNP or summer in Europe. This year is the overseas year and I'm travelling to the UK visiting a lot of family and going to Scotland for the first time. 

Much better than fighting Vaalies for beach space in December or January.

"DA"

"You're reaching man"

Whatever Plum....

"Apart from crunching some stranger when you first meet (which is always fun)"

You see, to me Plum, it is actually the finer and smaller details that tell me a lot about someone, even when they don't even realise it

That statement above, from CC, clearly shows me someone who, firstly...….  has a point to prove to whoever he meets for the first time.... wanting to display his dominance over that person..... from the get go..... it stems from being very insecure with oneself....

Maybe CC was bullied as a kid...….. who knows....... maybe he just likes hurting others....... which would not be a surprise..... because he has discussed it before

You see Plum......a firm hard handshake between any two people is a sign of mutual respect.............. wanting to "crunch" someone else's hand when meeting them for the very first time.....is not..... it is in fact a very weak move..... and you can spin that anyway you want to...........… CC intends on proving a point, every time that he does it.... it stems from his insecurities...… but he will also spin it in some other way.... but you cannot get away from that... and that is why he specifically mentions a "stranger", because the dominance that he wants to display is from his very first interaction with that person...….

It is sad......

Secondly..... he does it and watches for the reaction from the person he is shaking hands with...…. he wants to see if he can inflict that little bit of discomfort or pain...….. he loves it

You can also spin that anyway you want to...….. but it's a fact...… because it's his opening statement on the whole issue......

As I said....... it's the small things Plum........ that say so much

".... maybe he just likes hurting others....... which would not be a surprise..... because he has discussed it before.."

He has bragged about slicing coloured chappies with a knife(hence the nick Clean Cut) on a previous rugby site so you're not too far off the mark, DA.

Ja well...… what can I say Denny

As I told Plum..... it really is the small things...

You'll like Scotland. 

Hope you'll rent a car and drive around up there. For me, I'd pack a tent and some basic camping stuff in the back. Just because there are so many spectacular scenic spots where one would like to hang for a day or two. See a sunset/rise. 

So, I guess the  question still remains...…

If God refuses to reveal himself to anyone...…. because he is testing someone's complete faith or belief in him...…. how does one know that that voice that you just heard in your head, or any voice that you hear anywhere else..… is in fact, the voice of God?

DA, Plum and all other Atheists and Agnostics = No you don't know and probably never will.

Religious people = Yes, it could be God's voice. It could be the devil's voice and one's faith should help you know the difference.

DA, psychedelics are probably not a gateway to spiritual experiences. However, there are some so strong one's reality is entirely replaced. This temporary reality is entirely convincing. It is rendered inside your consciousness to the same level of detail that you view your normal world. The content being so unique that human experience has no frame of reference in order to describe it. To the point where the English language and human communication, in general, is not able to properly convey either the experience or the setting of the experience.  

The point being, one small and very simple chemical, is able to deliver something indistinguishable from an out of body experience. 

Something that, unless you have done it, you are entirely unable to come close to imagining. 

It says that with the smallest of brain chemistry tweak, your entire existence makes no logical sense in terms of what it was prior to taking the psychedelic. Your core conscious mind persists through the experience but so many unnecessary and egotistical aspects are muted/removed to the point that one often one does not recognise yourself.

All of this before we even mention the personal impact of the experience of the individual.

Being entirely removed from what you perceive to be reality helps one realise how much could be possible and why spiritual intolerance is a waste of time.

Plum, I genuinely have no idea why you keep referencing drugs to determine what reality a normal person goes through, every normal living day......

I get what you are saying, and that drugs can alter your mind and that some experiences could also be similar and even seem life like or identical, but I cannot understand the constant drug relevance to a very simple question...…….. because all you really seem to be doing is confusing the issue by going so deep into these drug issues, which have no relevance to the question at all

"DA, psychedelics are probably not a gateway to spiritual experiences. However, there are some so strong one's reality is entirely replaced"

"Your core conscious mind persists through the experience but so many unnecessary and egotistical aspects are muted/removed to the point that one often one does not recognise yourself."

For instance, these quotes above..... what, if anything, does this have to do with my question...…..because millions of people don't take drugs, and don't have out of body experiences …..

"Something that, unless you have done it, you are entirely unable to come close to imagining"

My point exactly...…… because billions will never have done it.....

"Being entirely removed from what you perceive to be reality helps one realise how much could be possible"

Fully agree, but this is another reason why I don't understand why you keep referencing drugs or mind altering experiences..... because the billions of average unsure people in the street will not go through this change of perc eption to their reality scenario that you are describing here...… so how does this let them know if God has spoken to them?

How do billions of people on this planet, know when their true faith is being tested....?

You yourself said...

"one's faith should help you know the difference"

So I ask again, how do you know when God has actually spoken to you, and that it is not your sub conscious thoughts?

How does a person's faith help them to know the difference?

If millions of non believers are wanting to go to God and believe in him, how do they know that he is speaking to them? 

DA

I mentioned psychedelics because YOU asked how they would know it is God's voice.

Nobody really "knows" anything. What you know and believe is a product of the chemical world around you interpreted by your chemical mind.

Are you able to make the connection on your own?

Note, your lack of ability to make connections doesn't mean that I'm trying to confuse anything.

"How does a person's faith help them to know the difference?"

Their faith is all the difference. No faith means you'll look for another explanation. Having faith means you are more likely to attribute it to God. If they believe in God..then according to them, they know it could be God's voice.

Are they objectively able to prove that it's God voice and therefore "know" in the scientific sense? That's actually what you are asking.

Why don't you just simplify the question. 

Does God exist? If so then prove it.

Want the answer? Go read any of the billions of pages written on the topic.

Unless, wait, were you expecting to find the answer here?

We're you really?