The issue with atheism

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I'm only questioning you, you say you take me for a bot. Naturally the question following is why you talk to bots.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I'm only questioning you, you say you take me for a bot. Naturally the question following is why you talk to bots.

Yep, and even this reply seems like a bot replying. There is no naturally flowing conversation to be had with you, just weird one liners.
Apologies if you are not a bot of course, and I answered your question previously, I talk to suspected bots out of curiosity, same as I do for fun with alleged online AI bots.
How does an AI bot believe in a god?

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Either a bot, or someone who can’t read.

You replied to it’s question in the first sentence lol.

Congrats, you've been pranked!

a reply to: TerryDon79

It's funny isn't it, either just someone odd or a bot in my mind. The one line answers are vague and weird, just like chatting to www.cleverbot.com...

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: TerryDon79

It's funny isn't it, either just someone odd or a bot in my mind. The one line answers are vague and weird, just like chatting to www.cleverbot.com...

You’re right. The replies reminded me of Eviebot (never tried cleverbot), where it kind of hears what you say, but misses words and fills in the blanks, then ends up replying to something you didn’t say. Or just replies with a generic reply (like yes, no, ok etc).

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Not a particularly sophisticated Bot either. It also may be replies filtered through online translation aps.

a reply to: TerryDon79
Ah, I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking the same.
It's just not a naturally flowing conversation at all, dead weird to me.

a reply to: Noinden
Yes, I thought the same! If this is the best current bot tech is offering then it is pretty piss poor lol.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
Congrats, you've been pranked!

By a poorly written script no doubt. If you are an example of one of your gods creations, then you are a testament to the weakness of your God.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

congrats you has been reported for T&C violations

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

So, going back to your original premise,

Atheism is the distantiation of God. These people claim to worship nothing, so are in fact claiming to be souvereign/supreme beings, actually God himself.

Do you at all feel sufficiently enlightened as to what atheism actually is yet? Myself and other educated individuals (@TerryDon -- good to see you matey) have tried to illustrate why you are incorrect in your statement.

Atheism is the label attributed to people who choose not to believe in a theistic point of view without evidence. It isn't to say that a god does not exist, but that the lack of evidence does not facilitate belief in the claim. Therefore, we don't believe you. I think any of us WOULD believe you, if you could prove it. Again, that's what science does - it demonstrates the facts, it doesn't care if you don't like them or are snowflake'd by them. They just are.

Nothing about doctrines or worshipping 'nothing'. In fact, I worship several things, my family being one of them.

Has any of it sunk in? Or will you fire another random misdirection about how life can only come from life, etc?

So far I think neither you, nor your clucking hen pal Randyvs have adequately explained why any of us should believe your position. I know, I know - "You don't care what we believe" you say over and over. But actually you should. Because you started this OP with your misunderstanding of atheism and then proceeded to ignore every attempt to explain it to you, while hiding behind your bullhorn on extra extra loud about how 'right' you are in the absence of provable evidence.

What say you?

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Woodcarver

My beliefs are validated, I don't need your approval.

Your beliefs are validated by what?

a reply to: Woodcarver

To be fair the problem/good thing about beleifs is you can only validate them in a personal or shared manner. UPG/USG (Unverifiable Personal/Shared Gnoses) are what we build beliefs on. IF we could prove something, they would not be beliefs but rather facts, and science would be where its at for the discussion

Closed for staff review.