Shared publicly  - 
Happy Saturday, my cute Plussies! (◕‿◕)✿

#atheism #atheist #skeptic #Science
Kathryn Loffleor's profile photoCarlos Niebla Becerra's profile photoFranc Schiphorst's profile photoGreg Cunningham's profile photo
You are the greatest, Monica!
And at the most basic level, it's still just writing in sand.
Not to mention the fact that this all happens in a matter of seconds!
Yes that was a nice piece of thought.... but after reading that I have weird sight... as if the white letters burned my retina. LOL (need a screen saver for my eyes)
Religion allows one to pick and choose what's factual based on what's convenient at the time. LOL But I've pondered this same senselessness.
+Greg Cunningham We all pick and choose what's factual based on convenience. Its human nature. Self-justification. We do not need religion for that.
+Rob Burke That's a biased opinion based on your own experience, but not everyone's. When practicing critical thinking you must be able to question your truths and allow yourself to be wrong when confronted with new evidence, even if you've done it time and time again.
Nice concept goog...+ but not for me too many comercial it s a desillusion for ordinary people like me the same earnings big moneys and the ordinary sheep are again traped i will not be that sheep to your comercial never be not comin back.j.m
+Greg Cunningham If I'm truthful, in personal matters I weigh the importance of the evidence based on the implications of the result. Of course, I'm only speaking for myself. I could say that I/people do not do this, but the evidence tells me otherwise. Of couse I do not do this consciously. It only becomes apparent in retrospect.
+Rob Burke True, the evidence seems otherwise way too often. It's difficult to be open to new information consistently if not practiced, uh... religiously (pun). The implications I'd assume are that you'd be outnumbered? heh. Not for long, the way things are going here on G+.
Saad M
If that is man-made accomplishments, then consider how great the universe is, which is far more greater and perfect than man-made achievements. Yet, the small micro-organisms, the oceans, the lands, the mountains, the sky, the placements of the stars, the planets, the universe, etc. were all RANDOMLY placed PERFECTLY by itself without a Creator? #AtheismFails
Did you really just say RANDOMLY placed PERFECTLY? LOL
It's impossible to sustain a dialog with near-cows who aren't willing to do all the hard work to understand simple biology (wich, by the way, CAN BE REPLICATED with simple experiments and REQUIRES NO FAITH). I LOL at them when they cry aloud "Yet, the small micro-organisms, the oceans, the lands, the mountains, the sky, the placements of the stars, the planets, the universe, etc. were all RANDOMLY placed PERFECTLY by itself without a Creator?" poor cows, they can't understand a thing about botany, but happily ingest plants... we aren't your teacher at hand, go find some and LEARN by yourself
Saad M
+Carlos Niebla Becerra I guess your ancestors were farmers and gardeners, hence, your knowledge about cows and botany. Also, before you speak about having a dialog, correct your grammar and sentences and use spell-check.
I'm glad all the other planets are perfect. We should live on all of them. :P
You guessed wrong, dumbass, all the way. English is only one of the languages I can use to make fun of people like you :)
Saad M
+Carlos Niebla Becerra You wanna act like a Beaner, then go ahead and act like one. There are plenty of insults I can throw at you, but is it really worth it? Anyways, your understanding of the world based on "English is only one of the languages I can use to make fun of people like you" is a joke. I think your education level was simply a Bachelors in your Grand Fathers Farm and Master in your Mothers Garden. Stop trying to act educated when your not!
Heysus would never say Beaner. You should be ashamed of yourself. ROFL
Ah, I know it's hip to be atheist now, but I guess it's also hip to be rude and intolerant. So, while I do love Science (but am not so naive to feel self-righteous about it!) and am quite proud of the human race for, you know, figuring out how to do stuff and all, I'm deeply ashamed how deeply embedded our heads are in our own backsides. Attacking people because of their faith is hardly what an enlightened human being would do.
Also, attacking someone over their ethnicity....
Many in this discussion would benefit from reading a little anthropology, and trying to understand their fellow human beings, and to understand what roles these belief systems have played in our development. Like it or not, you are a product of those belief systems in one way or another.
hahahahahaha it'a not an insult! I mean, I really do like beans, but I'm not your average "mexican" :) that made me laugh, it made my night... can't you see my picture? hahhahahaha :)
I mean, yeah, we can send light from one spot to another, translate pulses into human language....but we can't synthesize topsoil. Seriously. We can't.
Saad M
+Lewis LaCook I agree with you. However, the internet is an open forum for all sorts of people to say whatever they feel like saying. Hence, in my opinion, it's best to go with the flow. Reply to the thoughtful with similar responses and the dumb with insulting responses. This way you won't be isolating the two groups of people. I hope you understand that I'm equally racist, if it is the case.
Saad M
+Carlos Niebla Becerra I can see your picture, and I have a thousands words to say. But hopefully, you won't make me.
And not, intolerance came, for centuries, from the theist side pal. Right now there is nothing more agressive than a "believer" trying to attack fellow "godless" people man. And yes, is fun to mock those intents of "attacks" (like the one above, from some ignorant who can't understand how that "random" gave birth to their "universe") before going to bed. At least, those intents are ridiculed as ideas, and they realize, little by little, that they're TONS of people who don't have any faith ;-)
Oh! and what do you find? can I speak with your "superior" deity? or is it "the devil"? does it has a name? can you draw it or not? it is a cow?
No excuse. You want to be a full-spectrum human being, you try to understand other human beings. Just because theists (and from what I'm seeing here you guys have a very shallow knowledge of religion, which is not limited to Judeo-Christian beliefs, my friend) have displayed prejudice in the past is no reason atheists should. Makes you guys as bad as the fundies.
Saad M
+Carlos Niebla Becerra If you were born a hundred years ago, you would be believing as your ancestors were believing. However, in today's time, atheism has become another set of belief system. Atheism exists to oppose the beliefs of a traditional religious system, i.e. rejection of God altogether. It is no different than a traditional religion. You have faith that God doesn't exist, just as people have faith that God does exist. However, you try to think science only supports your beliefs while rejecting the other side when they also claim that science proves their beliefs. My point is, Atheist are not special or enlightened just because they oppose traditional religions.
BTW, it was also your Science that birthed Monsanto
And you can stop me, or Monica, from mocking something stupid by means of?
Lewis: sorry, I'm not a green hippie, and telling me that I shouldn't use "labels" wont work, go to Monsanto, not to science, please ;-)
Oh no, mock away. I'm just pointing out what I see as disturbing. I don't think you do your cause any good this way.
Ah, so, you believe in Science, but you do not believe the overwhelming evidence that some of the ways we live have been damaging to the earth? Really? I thought you guys were rationalists...
hahahahahahaha "atheism is another belief system" :-) be original, woman, I'm starting to get bored. Stand for your deity or be condemned: how is it named? you risk negating it?
Only teens have "causes" on the net, man. I'm just entertaining myself with yet another believer :-)
Atheists as you call them, just don't subscribe to the beliefs of any storybooks, just as you don't subscribe to all others but your own, such as Scientology, Muslim or whatever which are all just as valid as yours. Which in their books you're going to their hell for it. hehehe
Ah, that's right, close3 your mind, close your mind, that's how good science happens, right?
Saad M
+Carlos Niebla Becerra I was just looking at your profile and you seem like a middle age man. Initially I called you a beaner because I thought you were in your twenties, based on how you talked like a child. (Also, good job to your display pic as well.) But looking at your pictures, I felt bad about making fun of you. At your age, you should have some level of respect towards others so that they can speak in that manner. The worst thing is for a young person to be disrespecting an older person. I'm not sure if Atheism will ever reach this level of morality but at least religions will teach you some morality, aside from all the killings and stuff you guys learn about religion.
Oh, and the process listed in the image is wrong, btw....
We've very different opinions, also. I like to mock, but I prefer organised, traditional belief systems (except the excrement that is islam) that tend to do good on humanity over shitty metaphysical coctails from everywhere. Some condemn my mocking, also. We, atheists, are diverse...
I don't subscribe to any of them, by the way. Would be nice if you guys would read some books, storybooks or no. And who has a cause? I'm just stating facts.
Yes Saad, you were mistaken. I disrespect not you, but the idea you susbcribe that there's a creator, because you don't have proof. It's as simply as that.
Saad M
Think about it.
+Carlos Niebla Becerra Age 52. Educated man. Enjoying life. Owns multiple companies.
Yet talks like this: be original, woman, I'm starting to get bored. Stand for your deity or be condemned: how is it named? you risk negating it?, Only teens have "causes" on the net, man. I'm just entertaining myself with yet another believer :-)

What kind of conclusion are we supposed to make? If you are a typical person that joins Atheism, I'm glad not many people are a part of it. This type of mentality is as backwards as the stone ages. You might as well pick up some sticks and beat all religious people you walk into.
What fact, Lewis? that Monsanto is "an evil created by science" (wich is not, btw, as the patent and copyright system is)
oh, don't even get me started on copyright, sheesh
Saad, you walked in here, woman, to contrqdict the original post. I've found it nearly cow-minded to belief that somebody created the universe in this year and to stand by it in an atheist labeled thread. You're free to belief whatever shit you want, but to have the intention to correct somebody who doesn't without proof is moronic. And now, you got my age wrong by the half of your age, woman.
Saad M
+Carlos Niebla Becerra You never asked me for proofs. You don't have a proof that God doesn't exist. What is your proof? If you say science, then what about 1000 years ago, what criteria did they use to reject God? If you are the first person or group of first persons to reject God, then were the previous generations in ruin because they never reached the understanding you did? There are far more factors involved before coming to a conclusion then a simply "you don't have proof". It's as if, you have all the knowledge of the world, and you have deduced from your thousands of years of experience that God doesn't exist. You are a human being, taught in books without any experience, and live for 50,60,70 years, yet you claim to know everything and deduce that God doesn't exist? Very shallow.
Monsanto is a symptom. Science used to increase agricultural yields---that sounds noble, yes. But, because Science only allows one to see so far (and I'm not arguing that religion allows you to see farther, by any means), the methods used had some pretty screwed up environmental impact. Which threatens how you and I live---we do both live on the Earth, after all. And then they did their best to cover this up. Science tied to the market tries to make things more efficient, bigger, faster, etc etc. By itself that's fine. However, we keep running into the limits Nature has imposed on us.
I offer this: I live in a world of Science, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe we know every corner of existence yet. Science is a bright hope, but I don't think it's an excuse to stop thinking.
of course....I may be wrong about everything!
Saad M
I don't understand why Atheist believe Science is only their tool. I am equally a science freak and a spiritual one, nothing contradicts in my eyes.
No Saad, it's not shallow. We don't need proof of everything, that was a philosophical question answered many times before you were born, and it's called "Rusell's teapot". Sagan stated it simply for you: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And, I KNOW I sound arrogant to you, but I know that you don't have any proof to say what you said, because unlike you, I have the knowledge to proof that you are mkstaken, and you have it,to, in your nearest school.
OK, show me the proof that there is no god
It's "nature" pal, when you use "Nature" you label yourself as a green hippie, don't take with me. And Monsanto, science and agriculture have nothing to do with what you've stated, man. Unless, you are really a "green hippie" ;-)
You know how I can prove to you that god exists? See this word: god. You know what it means, I know what it means. The concept we can agree exists, does it not?
So atheists don't believe in nature? Do you live in a vacuum?
Yes, I read Russell many many years ago. But how does that even apply? I started off arguing for civility, now I'm arguing for the existence of a concept. I could take it to strict hardcore empiricism and point out to you that you may in fact not know that Russell existed, as you have never been in the same room with him.
Lewis, please. If somebody says "dragon" you can proof its existence by means of the word and, by your absurd line of logic, do I have to proof that there is not? where did you learned to use language like that pal? you're trully a full blown green hippie my friend :-D
Saad M
+Carlos Niebla Becerra Russel's teapot, sorry never heard of it. Hence, your argument based on him against me is futile. Why because, you are basing your judgment based on a guy that is not credible in my eyes nor do I care to read his silly arguments. Bring forth another proof.
Hell, dude, the opposite of that concept seems to pretty much form the entirety of your worldview.
Saad M
+Carlos Niebla Becerra BTW If I post an article on Wikipedia, will you also use that as your authentic evidence? lol
And no, I'm not here for "civility", I'm being honest with you: I find it amusing to play with somebody that knows less than I do (despicable, I know) and then tries to teach me something (that's entertaining, yiu should know). Many people knows vastly more than I do, but you two are not. You can't apply the teapot from above when you ask "where's your proof that there is no god?" really? have you read it? nahhhh... that's why you entertain me :-)
The concept exists. And the concept of god is important both historically and culturally. You guys have just substituted Science for it. Makes you guys just as religious as the fundies--worse in some ways, because your proselytizing comes with a whopping amount of arrogance. You guys are just as imperialistic as the Christians have been, you just lack the material assets to express it.
Why do you fricking have me arguing for the existence of god anyway? Other than conceptually, I have no idea. I don't believe in a supernatural being, but I don't think that makes me an atheist. How did I get into this argument??? ;-}
Hey everybody! Saad says she's not familiar with philosophy and she is proud of it (at least she's honest, for starters, right Lewis?). Somebody tell me this is not funny!
Saad M
+Carlos Niebla Becerra Sorry to burst your bubble, but as much "knowledge" and "education" that you are trying to prove from your sentences, I can find 5 to 10 year olds that have better understanding than you do. Just because you are a 52 years old hag doesn't mean, you know EVERYTHING about the world. You learned one side of the coin, from people, nobody really cares about or finds amusing. I can quote you so and so and say, "he says and she says", all day long, but none of it is helping you. Bring some substance from your book of proofs. So far you may have read all your life from books that were written by unknown people without any credibility. You are starting to make me laugh with your silly arguments. LOL
Why yes Lewis, I'm not as troubled as you to write whatever you just writed. You just said that you didn't made any sense... what's wrong with you? even Saad looks weirdy puzzled.
No, I read Russell back in school. And why should I justify that to you, in any case? You've already shown you have no knowledge of history, anthropology, and certainly no healthy self doubt (WHICH IS WHAT YOUR SCIENCE IS BUILT ON, so you are also not knowledgeable about Science). So, yeah, insult my intelligence, little man. You arfe a small man because you cannot intelligently discuss this at all.
Saad M
+Carlos Niebla Becerra You should be a professional comedian with all the "jokes" you are spitting. I only see one person laughing, and that's you. The rest of us are laughing at you.
Not only have I read Russell, but I also know enough about TCP/IP to know that the process described in the original post up there is a very naive view of how the protocols work.
Saad, again ? Russell is "unknown people" to you and you're proud of that? please write it again, just one more time! please!
Lewis: so, for thousands of years peolle believed in shit like flat earths, and that counts as proof to you, c'mon! you can write better pal ;-)
I know yhat you are laughing at me everytime that I point the fact that you thing that Russell is an unknown people, irrelevant, and so on :) and the fact that you find it laughable is one of the things why I thing of your beliefs the way I showed all this time :)
Saad M
+Carlos Niebla Becerra I'm sorry but maybe Russell is outdated hence why they don't teach us in school anymore. Why should I waste my time on a theory that nobody really believes in. In your eyes, Russell maybe a genius, in my eyes, he is as unknown and little importance than the beans you eat at home or pick in the farms. All I am saying is, why would you mention to me something about a guy's theory, which has no value in front of me.
Come on, Saad, be good girl and ask me, or anybody else, to show proof that there's no god, and proudly stand that Russell is not relevant in your question, just for good times :-)
Saad M
+Carlos Niebla Becerra I feel sorry for you. You thought the rest of the world was on page with you, but perhaps, your old school. Your understanding and judgments are also old school. You should catch up with the new world and enlighten yourself. Let go of your old pals like Russell (Who?) and whoever you learned from.
Saad M
+Carlos Niebla Becerra Just because your 52 years old, doesn't mean you are qualified to be a teacher. What university did you go to? Wikipedia or Google Scholar?
Ah! you just did! and not only that, but you were kind enough to elaborate on that! good girl! :-)
No, not proof, no a proof of physicality. But that concept also existed, until exploration disproved it. And I'm not arguing for the existence of god per se; if anything, I'm alarmed at the blind arrogance of people who call themselves sceptics. To be so sure is unscientific; it would be more accurate to say that you have a hypothesis that there is no god. You seem to assume that 'god' means the Judeo-Christian supernatural being; to me, that's reductive, and excluding a LOT of other thought.
(and me getting angry make ME a little man)
Am I being mean here with these two poor "souls"? hahahaahahahahahaha "old school" hahahahaha :-)
Mean, no. Oversimplifying just about everything, yes.
Saad M
+Carlos Niebla Becerra If I were you, I'd cry at the things I have learned. The world has moved forward a lot since your days. You are at a stage of denial and perhaps old age crisis and feel that you should be respected, listened to, and accepted. Unfortunately, you are like a lonely man living in his own world thinking he is the king in it and demands others to obey him. Don't work that way!

You still haven't proved that God doesn't exist! Please don't change the subject until you answer this question.
Oh yes, Lewis, you're right: I'm excluding a lot of your toughts here! and I don't feel bad at all :) It's like talking to chimps, and yes, is extraordinary as that :) I'm not sorry, because you aren't even capable to understand why I compare you two to chimps, and why reading a chimp is both amusing and extraordinary.
+Saad M Do you find Russell's teapot illogical? What's unbelievable about it? Is it to sciencey?
Here's the thing: science expands, it corrects itself, it is always SEEKING. I don't get the impression that you guys are seeking anything. I get the impression you read some pop sci and now think you know everything about the universe. And that's a dangerous way to be; it means just about any voice of authority can lead you anywhere. Where is the proud tradition of free thought atheism and scepticism nurtures?
No Saad, I'm not going to give proof that there isn't a god. Please be a good girl and call your "win" over Russell and this poor guy named Niebla. Do it at once. Come on. You can do it.
Russell's teapot doesn't demolish the idea of god, it's simply about the burden of proof. I'm not trying to prove anything other than concepts, and to maybe prod people into thinking on a wider scope.
Saad M
+Greg Cunningham My Question is for +Carlos Niebla Becerra to prove as he says that God doesn't exist. I don't need you to come with another theory stating that my question is wrong. I don't care about Russell's teapot. That's not my concern. My concern is a simple question; Prove to me that God doesn't exist?

+Carlos Niebla Becerra is simply trying to avoid the answer because 1. he doesn't have any. 2. He needs to use theories to defend himself about how the question cannot be answered. 3. Use insults to hide his ignorance. 4. He jumps between 1,2, and 3
Lewis, it gives me the impression that you went to Saad's school, but maybe I'm plain wrong, and it's a whole schooling system...
Oh yes Saad, go on, elaborate on this: I find it amusing that a chimp understands that it's been insulted (not how it is insulted, and that's mean on my side, I know) :-)
Are you saying the teapot ISN'T about the burden of proof? You've never read Russell, have you?
Can you two prove that the other deities exist or don't? That could be fun.
Saad M
+Carlos Niebla Becerra Even your jokes are only understood by you. Do your friends find you funny? Anyways, get to the point and stop hiding behind the bushes.

Question: Prove that God doesn't exist?
Answer by Carlos: Well, um. You know there is this theory called Russell's teapot, which I drink my coffee in it. Well it states that your question cannot be answered. Hence, I believe that God doesn't exist but can't prove that he doesn't exist.
I do not know whether deities exist or not. Only reasonable conclusion. The teapot argument has always been a circular, fallacious argument....
Greg: that's asking to much. No, thay can't, but is fun as it is. Chimps. You can't discuss with them, but you can make them rattle their cages and they doesn't evwn know they are being made into...
No, Lewis, no. But if you want to continue to made a fool of yourself, please indulge me :-)
You're ignoring about half of what I say because you do not understand it. I mean, that's the assumption I come to. Is this correct?
Saad M
+Carlos Niebla Becerra did you get educated outside of Mexico or you didn't hop the border? Just wondering, I would love to study in your college or university you went to. Want to be as smart as you are.
"we can see why Russell's teapot argument fails to disprove anything. The argument
is circular. Its conclusion is built into its premises. It begins with an object whose
existence in outer space is intrinsically unbelievable – and it ends in the conclusion that
belief in the object's probable existence is irrational."
in essence, all the argument really says is, don't believe in an improbable object if the object is not probable
Lewis you haven't read the whole pdf (nor the original argument) it actually proofs it... learn to use Google, chimp.
Why don't you call I lose this? I'm not even willing to give you any proof that there's no god :-)
Now, "god" is quite different than a teapot. We know what a teapot is; we can touch it, it has extension in space, etc etc. But the idea of god is a different thing altogether. So (and keep in mind I'm NOT arguing for the existence of god, but rather showing you how frail your arguments are), yeah, I find a teapot floating in space a ridiculous idea. But this idea of some binding divinity is a different matter; I DON'T know what that is, nothing in my world corresponds to it, it has no extension in space, etc etc. You cannot take a nebulous idea like the idea of god and compare it to a teapot
Now, I'm not talking about a supernatural father in the sky, keep that in mind. That's why I made the concept argument. There are other manifestations of this idea (I know, just blew your mind, but hey, you can pick things up when you read). I mean, think about the Higgs Bosun.....we NEED the Higgs to exist because if it doesn't our physics are completely wrong. But I have no experience of the Higgs, and neither do you. I think about the idea of god somewhat like the Higgs...
Yeah, I'm not arguing for the existence of god. I'm arguing that the teapot is a weak argument.
Why yes Lewis, that's exactly what makes Russell differet from you, chimp: you actually can find the difference between a floating hipotetical teapot and a god.
And I'm arguing that you also do not know whether this thing exists or not.
Saad at least is honest: she just doesn't even care for Russell, it's all grammatics, syntaxis and countries :-)
The difference between us is this: I admit to not knowing.
No Lewis, you're not arguing anything You're rattling your cage at my command :-)
Yes, it easier to degrade honest people and their beliefs. It's a bit harder to deal with complexity.
Now for something actually profound.
The scientific method is a tool for discovering truth.
Scientists are humans and therefore fallible.
Learn the difference.
I dealed with you two delightfully as you didn't even knew how. I thank you for a very pleasant evening. Don't go into physics using the word "believe", as you embarras yourself as a chimp.
EXACTLY!!! And how does anything I have said not follow that?
And I dealt with you, and learned everything I need to know about this.
Lewis, Saad, I command you but to stop rattling your cages as I'm going to sleep now. Now. I mean it, you easily manipulated chimps!
I know that if you represent atheism, you're a curiously closed-minded bunch, for people who value science.
I did this for my pleasure... it helped me clarify a few things for myself....and man, it's been years since I've heard Russell brought up
I'm a chimp to, as every human that walks on the face of earth, my favorite "insult" for the average believer, btw. These two are now blocked, as I need to sleep. Nighty night!
Compared to what happens in the body of the smallest spider or bug all described above is emphatically nothing let alone the human's body. Is the use of the latter much better all the time?
haha i love sending that to those none believers just so i can see if they can come up with a retort or be completely stumped..... so funny XD
Haha. Arguing over the internet is senseless. It's up to each individual to question themselves and decide if their synthetic beliefs are false, while preferential bias keeps one from entertaining a new logical argument. Also know as not being able to learn. Carlos, you were arguing with one monotheistic agnostic and one hardcore theist. To each one, their own belief is the right truth, so you were essentially taking on two different arguments. And afterwards everyone wins in their own mind due to backfire effect. Lulz
Hey +Greg Cunningham ! I wasn't doing it for "the win" of an argument, as you just can't reason about faith :) I was having fun slapping ignorants. The last time I had a real conversation (NOT arguments) was over a glass of very good wine with Monseñor Archbishop Tito Yllana, a distant relative of an ex, about 12 years ago :-)
Oh, I know. It's a kind of twisted entertainment because you know your questions can't be processed with rational thought. LOL That was a good example of confirmation bias, which forces the person to seek out an answer that agrees with his/her belief, and whether it's true or not it relieves discomfort from the incongruent information. Quite often our brains work against us. :)
Sometimes he gets bored and throws rocks at our planet. It couldn't be random. :P
Add a comment...