| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
22 Mar 2005 02:43:07 AM |
| Object: |
Why There isn't a God - Duck ***** Edition |
Evidence of No God (Rev1)- Budikka666, circa 2005AD
(really it's nothing more than Duck ***** with a few words changed to
show how his pathetic "evidence" can just as readily "prove" there's no
god where it fails to even represent evidence that there is one. It's
not part of the series).
1. The belief that a supreme being is not the creator of the universe
is based on a profession by those that believe that is equal to, but no
less than, any profession that our universe exists for any other
alternative reason that can be imagined.
One could hypothesize an astronomical event such as a prior universe
that collapsed in on itself and has now exploded outward to form our
new present universe. If this did happen, it might have happened again
and again for the same reason as the latest occurrence, thereby
suggesting that the universe always was, is, and always will be. Yet
another equal suggestion is that the universe was birthed out of
another universe (oh, I just did that one), or another dimension, or
any of an infinite number of origins.
The human mind can readily cope with the idea that all things lack a
beginning unless it's blinkered by religious dogma, and clearly both
matter and energy on their own, the basic building blocks of the
universe, can exist in and of itself.
The profession by non-believers is that our universe is not a creation
of almighty God who is truly acknowledged as "always was, is, and
always will be". No alternative is available if you have no
imagination as some Catholics cluelessly chide you for at the end of
this self-same article!
2. The big bang - first there was nothing - no time, no mass, no
energy, no "outer space" - then an infinitely small point of infinitely
dense mass appeared which was not there before, and then it exploded
outward to form our universe, including "time" and all "outer space" as
we know it.
The universe is expanding, but into what? Is there an edge to the
universe, and if there is, what is it expanding into?
3. Medical science itself professes the human body to reflect no
"design with purpose". It consists of a central computer (brain)
supported by a fluid transfer system (blood) forced along by a pump
(heart), an energy conversion system (stomach and intestines), a waste
disposal system, an oxygen transfer system (lungs) that is required to
transfer necessary oxygen to the brain and to the body parts,
maintenance organs (spleen, gall bladder, etc), and a body salinity
(same as ocean water) exactly correct as necessary for transfer of
minute electrical signals to/from the brain to operate and control the
body.
4. The contraption invasion (I made this up. Cute ain't it?)
contained in more advanced animal forms is divided 50% in the male and
50% in the female (this is a lie, but hey, why can't Catholic bigots
pretend they're not sexist?). We only mix the chemicals, but damn!
it's fun. Of special interest is the fact that the male and female
organs are of complimentary shape in mammals (except for certain
Louisiana-based life forms which lack balls). These two facts are
especially conducive to support evolution.
5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships of
life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:
The Earl does not respond to, or relate to, Duck *****'s existence
because it fully lacks the faculties to do so. Nor does the Duck *****
acknowledge, in any fashion, it's awareness of the inanimate object.
One level upward, Puke (simple life) does not respond to, or relate to,
the Duck ***** because it lacks the faculties to do so. However, the
Duck ***** does have a limited reverse recognition of Puke because it is
a noted food source for the Duck *****, but the Puke does not relate in
any way to the Duck *****, what it is, or why it is.
One level up, the the Weber does not grasp the pre-eminence, or
competently relate to the atheist, other than in very rudimentary ways,
because it lacks the courage, evidence and intellect to do so. The
atheist, on the other hand, has a full range of knowledge and a clear
relationship directed backward to the Weber including leading the Weber
by the nose, but the Weber has minimal upward reaction to the atheist
other than outright lying, posting unsupported assertions, and running
away when challenged.
Notice how one level can relate backwards to a lower level, but in the
opposite higher level only in a very rudimentary fashion. Yet each
higher level not only exists but exists "basically unknown" to the
level below it.
What, then, regarding the existence of a level higher than the human?
As is seen at each level, the inability, or limited ability, to relate
to the level above it does not in any way negate its very existence,
but neither does it prove or even suggest that there must be one.
We don't lack sufficient faculties to respond to, or relate to, a
higher level above man. Does this negate the existence of such a
level? Why should we be able to relate upwards when lower life can't?
Simple, there's a fatal flaw in my "logic"! By no logic, should there
necessarily be any level above human.
As humans (mankind and womankind), most of us not resident on Newcastle
Avenue possess tremendous advanced faculties over those of the cow -
intelligence, reason, logic, love, empathy, sympathy, thinking we know
why we suffer, etc. And we can use these faculties to study, learn,
reason, dream, and subjectively conclude that, logically speaking, some
level should exist higher than man, if oyu;re a complete idiot.
As before, we too aren't limited in our ability to relate to that
higher level, but in no way does this negate or posit its existence.
If there is no greater known than man, then idiots would pretend that
man would be the pinnacle of life, the top, even though (evidenced by
the mess we make of the world - war, disease, pestilence, hatred, man's
inhumanity to man, etc.) this is *****.
Man as the ultimate, the pinnacle, the top, is illogical, so idiots
leap to the conclusion that this proves a god.
How many levels are there above us? We don't know (no surprises
there). We can't even prove so much as one level, but that won't stop
us blatherign endlessly abotu it like it's a fact. The top level, by
idiot logic, must be *perfection*. Is it reasonable to think the move
from man to the top is made in one step? Of course it is - as
reasonable as everything else, but this doesn't fit my preconceived
notion, so let me blather some more ***** at you. That is not very
imaginative, but then, imagination and logic are so thoroughly mixed up
in this nonsense diatribe as to render the whole mess meaningless.
So let's think in terms of two steps. There's no reason at all for
this except that it fits with my preconceived agenda. The middle step,
necessary to perpetrate my farce would be one greater than man and one
lesser than a supreme being. Predictably enough, the "angel" fits the
position exactly, more than man but less than perfection. What a pity
there's no such thing!
Can we prove it - of course not, but that doesn't stop imbeciles from
swallowing it whole. But we can use our advanced capacities to dream,
to aspire, to reach out for that imbecile's neck, from which we can
profess to truly be the throttle which propels him to the very heaven
he seeks. Or we can quit wasting everyone's time and apply ourselves
to creating heaven here on Earth by means of compassion and science.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There isn't a God - Duck Edition |
22 Mar 2005 03:03:58 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
Evidence of No God (Rev1)- Budikka666, circa 2005AD
Really, Budikka, you need to get *your* ducks in a row. This looks
silly, 5 ft of clay named Budikka lipping off to God.
Budikka, you will stand before your maker someday, you will have to
answer for all these idle claims.
Matthew 12:36-37
36But I tell you, on the day of judgment men will have to give account
for every idle word they speak.
37For by your words you will be justified and acquitted, and by your
words you will be condemned and sentenced.
Listen, are you so sure that everything you see, everything we
see...just popped into existence *by itself*
Or, are you willing to be reasonable and consider that a being outside
of our limits to understand created everything.
Budikka, cut the nonsense, those are the only 2 choices.
Go with the evidence.
Psalm 8:3
When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Part_Time_Troll" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There isn't a God - Duck Edition |
23 Mar 2005 04:29:08 AM |
|
|
Grendel <nadda@trynot.com> in news:ytW%d.91814$i6.45503@edtnps90:
are you so sure that everything you see, everything we
see...just popped into existence *by itself*
or never popped into existence.
why do you seem so sure that exsitence had to be made?
--
You can die for my typo sins, but I won't.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There isn't a God - Duck Edition |
23 Mar 2005 10:44:40 AM |
|
|
Grendel cluelessly blathered:
Really, Budikka, you need to get *your* ducks in a row. This looks
silly, 5 ft of clay named Budikka lipping off to God.
What a hypocrite you are to set yourself up as god, judging others!
Isn't that blasphemy? Fortunately for you, blasphemy is the only
victimless crime.
But the bottom line is that you're evidently too clueless to grasp
what's going on here. These are not my evidences! They're a parody of
Earl Weber's "evidences". He claims they're evidence for god, but
they're nothing but blind belief. All I did is turn them right around
and show that the same "evidence" he claims he has for a god is equally
evidence against one. In other words, it's useless.
So please, criticise all you want. None of it is criticism of me, but
of Earl Weber! LoL!
Budikka, you will stand before your maker someday, you will have to
answer for all these idle claims.
Prove it.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There isn't a God - Duck Edition |
22 Mar 2005 03:12:18 PM |
|
|
Grendel wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
Evidence of No God (Rev1)- Budikka666, circa 2005AD
Really, Budikka, you need to get *your* ducks in a row. This looks
silly, 5 ft of clay named Budikka lipping off to God.
Budikka, you will stand before your maker someday, you will have to
answer for all these idle claims.
Assuming, of course, that God and Heaven exists, which we do not. And,
going under the presumption of "existence" of these Gods and places of
paradise, do you really think that God is so immature?
The Bible says that God (I gotta find a better term... Jehovah?) is a
jealous god. Personally, I would not like to live my life trying to
please a jealous god. It'd be like telling a woman to try to please her
abusive husband. "He loves you, that's why he hits you."
This is not a moral religion, Christianity, it is an abusive
relationship with a jealous god.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There isn't a God - Duck Edition |
23 Mar 2005 10:47:13 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Assuming, of course, that God and Heaven exists, which we do not.
And,
going under the presumption of "existence" of these Gods and places
of
paradise, do you really think that God is so immature?
The Bible says that God (I gotta find a better term... Jehovah?) is a
jealous god. Personally, I would not like to live my life trying to
please a jealous god. It'd be like telling a woman to try to please
her
abusive husband. "He loves you, that's why he hits you."
This is not a moral religion, Christianity, it is an abusive
relationship with a jealous god.
I'd go further than that. It's nothing but slavery. And it's
precisely the kind of god you would expect primitive humans to conjure
up. The pathetic blueprint for this god alone is the strongest
evidence that there is no god.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There isn't a God - Duck Edition |
22 Mar 2005 09:14:58 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:12:18 -0800, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Budikka, you will stand before your maker someday, you will have to
answer for all these idle claims.
Assuming, of course, that God and Heaven exists, which we do not.
Nope, it has nothing with your belief. God awaits your judgment day whether you
believe in him or not.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There isn't a God - Duck Edition |
23 Mar 2005 02:14:15 AM |
|
|
On 22 Mar 2005, duke dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:12:18 -0800, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Budikka, you will stand before your maker someday, you will have to
answer for all these idle claims.
Assuming, of course, that God and Heaven exists, which we do not.
Nope, it has nothing with your belief. God awaits your judgment day
whether you believe in him or not.
You will die some day and lose consciousness forever, whether you believe
in God or not. We have evidence that suggests this. Where is yours?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There isn't a God - Duck Edition |
23 Mar 2005 10:37:45 AM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:12:18 -0800, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Budikka, you will stand before your maker someday, you will have
to
answer for all these idle claims.
Assuming, of course, that God and Heaven exists, which we do not.
Nope, it has nothing with your belief. God awaits your
judgment day whether you believe in him or not.
God awaits *my* judgement? I already judged and found him
non-existent.
But all you've stated here, Puke, is yet another belief! It's pure
belief!
In other words, you're too stupid to tell the difference between belief
and evidence, which is the whole point of this thread! Thanks for
conceding it. You walked right into yet another trap as I knew you
would. Like a puppet on a string. No surprises there. Duck ***** will
out.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Part_Time_Troll" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There isn't a God - Duck Edition |
23 Mar 2005 04:35:34 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
news:ck2141ddkh9sqet3uoda1d8q9pd3erst9f@4ax.com:
Nope, it has nothing with your belief. God awaits your judgment day
whether you believe in him or not.
the verity of your second statement has nothing to do with reality. you would need an
infinite stretch of time to believe in all of hte infinite quantity of 'Gods'.
--
You can die for my typo sins, but I won't.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
