ProgrammingGod doesn't understand how font size and eyeballs work.
If water rots the soles of your boots, what does it do to your intestines?
Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
|
ProgrammingGod doesn't understand how font size and eyeballs work.
If water rots the soles of your boots, what does it do to your intestines?
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
November 19, 2016 at 2:02 pm
Well, I tried to understand what was being postulated. All that happened is now I think Cortana is trying to kill me. I used to run my neck on religiousforums and these Buddhist muppets would twist themselves into pretzels in attempting to communicate without the use of the word I. That's the vibe I'm getting here. :/
404 evidence of evidence not found. RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
November 20, 2016 at 2:56 am
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2016 at 3:12 am by ProgrammingGodJordan.)
(November 19, 2016 at 2:02 pm)houseofcantor Wrote: Well, I tried to understand what was being postulated. All that happened is now I think Cortana is trying to kill me. I used to run my neck on religiousforums and these Buddhist muppets would twist themselves into pretzels in attempting to communicate without the use of the word I. That's the vibe I'm getting here. :/ ('A') I had tweeted to Sam Harris (an atheist physicist), notifying him of my ATHEISTIC nature, WHILST stipulating of his closed mindedness (I had used expletives) - in NOT recognizing the likely hood of non-omniscient Gods, (on scientific observation). A few weeks after said tweet, Sam conceded, of the serious possibility, that mankind shall likely compose a type of 'God' in this video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWL...tml5=False SEE video section "14:08". ('B') I have not any certainty, whether I had influenced his video, but I had tweeted him the article stipulated in the original post. Here is the article once more: https://medium.com/@uni.omniscient.x/god....gew83ll3i ('C') Albeit, not all beings are as reasonable as Sam Harris, or other physicists/scientists, which is quite disappointing. RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
November 20, 2016 at 3:25 am
This thread is bullshit without crayon drawings. I want my crayon drawings!
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
November 20, 2016 at 7:40 am
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2016 at 7:41 am by I_am_not_mafia.)
Hehehe
ProgrammingGodJordan just got banned on The Thinking Atheist. He posted the same OP there and it was pointed out quite how it had already turned out on AF. They obviously recognised that he lacked any entertainment value as a chew toy, would not respond to any questions and just kept spamming the same shit again and again. His thread made 3 pages before he got banned. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ype-of-God RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
November 20, 2016 at 7:52 am
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2016 at 7:53 am by Excited Penguin.)
He's not a physicist. The likelihood that that happened is the same as you being an A. I. created by dogs.
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
November 20, 2016 at 8:40 am
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
November 20, 2016 at 9:46 am
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2016 at 10:30 am by ProgrammingGodJordan.)
(November 20, 2016 at 7:52 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: He's not a physicist. The likelihood that that happened is the same as you being an A. I. created by dogs. (A) Indeed, a typographical error of mine. Sam is but a neuroscientist. I had been observing a debate, between William Lane Craig and Sean Caroll, a physicist. I am reminded of Sam Harris, in observing Sean Caroll. Therein the typographical error occurred prior. (B) It seems you are ignoring certain sequences. There already exists efficient, non-cumbersome neurosynaptic chips that yield 10^14 synaptic operations per second. (of the estimated 10^16-18 synaptic operations computed by the human brain) Such is quite the theistic behaviour; for you ignore viable sequences on the horizon of emotional bias. (November 20, 2016 at 7:40 am)Mathilda Wrote: Hehehe I was indeed banned. I had predominantly duplicated a response roughly thrice [including an identical portion in roughly three distinct responses], and so my activities were detected as spam. Albeit, I tend to reuse responses, SOLELY where applicable. NOTE: I notice, that I tend not to recieve banning, on threads where moderators partake in some profound science/study [physics, mathematics]. Otherwise, where intellect withers, bans are almost certain. RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
November 20, 2016 at 10:04 am
LMAO.
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
November 20, 2016 at 10:05 am
Since when Sam Harris is a neuroscientist?
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|