For some, faith is the ultimate display of humility and submissiveness to a higher power whose existence has never been objectively substantiated. The phenomenon is utterly bizarre due to the fact that educated, intelligent and thinking individuals also have the predilection towards such surrender to a random force. Despite the way they process information and empirical data, even the smartest seem to voluntarily give up their skepticism and inquisitiveness all in the name of convenience and blindly submitting to an unsubstantiated claim.
On the assumption that a god exists, the humility is only directed towards that being. Isn’t it supposedly ironic that a being so powerful and omnipresent would require absolute submission despite little to no evidence of his existence. Sure, christians always use the retarded Oh, look at how pretty the blue sky is! Look at the birds, the other animals and the trees! We live in a world of beauty… ERGO, god exists argument as if it holds water as a point. Even if a god created everything, it says nothing about the christian god being the one who created it. That christian god is more of a human construct that only happens to be prominent now because of the war-mongering Romans and the colonizing Europeans.
This is were the faith is stretched. Faith is already a big stretch in itself. It’s akin to believing an egomaniac of a god who requires constant adoration, praise and prayers from his loyal subjects. He requires it despite not even proving his existence in a form that can be appreciated by everyone. In the end, faith is simply a crutch for arrogance used by many to brandish around as fake armor of morality and decency. Faith is nothing but an excuse – and yes, surrender — to further inquiry. It is a feel-good option that is laced with intellectual laziness and haughtiness that fails to deliver on empirical standards.
The faithful, despite their claims of humility, are just as arrogant as everybody else that they tag as arrogant. They wield their faith as an unquestionable concept despite its obvious logical flaws and use it to rebut the better argued points that are grounded on grammar and common sense but are not imbued with the mystic abilities of faith. The concept of god was created by man and faith is the absolute manifestation of that arrogance.
Man doesn’t want to be alone, thus, he created god in many images. He refused to believe the more gloomy yet more likely reality that his god may not really be extant at all. Man is arrogant in not conceding to the depression of a lonely existence – and as we see now, faith is being used as an excuse for patronage for the ideal and exaltation for the divine. In the end, man is simply worshiping his own model – his own paradigm. And of course, he will never accept that reality.
Bookmark at:
StumbleUpon | Digg | Del.icio.us | Dzone | Newsvine | Spurl | Simpy | Furl | Reddit | Yahoo! MyWeb
Viewed 5162 times by 1859 viewers
ann: no atheist here makes an arbitrary assumption of God’s non-existence, the evidence is simply there: an indifferent universe, an inaccurate Bible, and no evidence of an afterlife, for starters. (I joke about my atheism stemming from God not giving me a pony for my birthday, but that’s just it: a joke.)
Besides, when was the last time you met anyone who refused to believe in your existence when the evidence of his senses overwhelmingly refuted him?
I guess before you can effectively win this ongoing game of “Stump the Atheist”, you better come up with some valid evidence of God’s existence first. Thanks for playing!
@ann
If I said “if I don’t win the lotto this week, god doesn’t exist,” then proceeded to use that as an argument against his/her existence, then you’d be correct in your “clapping” analogy. But we atheists of the rational kind are not that arbitrary. When we say evidence, we mean stuff that we can verify independently, manifestations that do not require “faith” or any form of intellectual contortion.
When I say gravity exists, anyone on earth can verify it.
Even people who do not believe in gravity are affected by it. When you say god exists, what method do we have of verifying that?
Of course you can justify the lack of evidence of god as “hiding” or refusing to kowtow to us puny humans. But that can be used to justify the lack of evidence for anything: teapot, unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, Zeus, Thor, etc.
There are a lot of gods out there from various belief systems. Why do you dismiss their existence? When you understand that, you will understand why I dismiss the existence of yours.
this thread highlights how hard it is to be good communicators. most of the people in this post just gave up a healthy debate just because it’s hard to communicate well. i’m pretty sure, most of the arguments stemmed from miscommunications.
my piece for this thread:
i hold on to faith and i believe there is a God by faith. Not by evidence, but doesn’t mean I’m arrogant. Arrogance comes in when a believer cannot accept other people’s beliefs.
i think that’s a summary, if not, pretty close to it.
funny thing is that similar to issai (? sorry just scanned through the long list of comments) i’ve defended the views of atheists of whatever stripe from the likes of those who profess to have “strong faith”… especially when i hear arguments about “things exist that we cannot see” like radio waves, gravity et cetera.
that whole email joke about “the professor not having a brain because he has never seen it” seems to have pervaded the thinking of defenders of the faith.
missingpoints PWNs such arguments quite precisely by saying that they are observable phenomena — not by vision, yes, but by instrumentation. we are still able to “see” them, we just need to wear “glasses”.
i particularly like issai’s two-liner; but, on matters germane on the debate above, i have yet to see an argument defending the validity of having faith vis-a-vis the stand that faith is unnecessary.
i do have a little nit to pick — when missingpoints above said that it is not up to atheists to prove the existence of a god or gods (and he/she is absolutely right on that; not sure which gender, apologies), i think that the converse challenge would be for atheists to likewise prove that god does not exist, in a manner repeatable and demonstrable (referring back to the empirical paradigm of proof).
of course, it would be easy to do that in terms of some theists (jump off the building and pray hard that you won’t get killed or whatever); hard it would be to disprove the existence of a non-interventionist deity (ala spinoza? einstein?). unless, of course, we say that there being no way to prove nor disprove said existence, let’s just take it on faith that the being doesn’t.
jester: “i think that the converse challenge would be for atheists to likewise prove that god does not exist, in a manner repeatable and demonstrable (referring back to the empirical paradigm of proof).”
And I’ll do that when Christians show proof that Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Ahura-Mazda, the FSM, and Xenu don’t exist. Christians are atheists, too, I just went one god further.
In science: things are deemed a fact unless it has been unproven. The atheists society has up to date has not been able to successfully disprove God as much as theists are not still able to prove God’s existence. The problem with SOME atheists is that they subscribe much the their emotions(which they mistake as their own logic) that real logic. Even a non-fanatic religious person who does not shove their belief into the throat of the atheists are easily angered just because of difference in belief.
Funny how the Filipino adage is true: Ang magnanakaw ay galit sa kapwa magnanakaw. Just replace magnanakaw with arrogante
“Ang arrogante ay galit sa kapwa arrogante”
If theists are arrogant because they have faith, atheists are equally arrogant with their existential BELIEF.
SOME atheist criticize the bible to be inaccurate and not being able to completely explain things logically. But so is science: You see, even science cannot explain where the heaven did force and energy come from! Because of the lack of evidence, they simply say “Force/Energy is neither created nor destroyed”. Science can’t fully explain force and energy that’s why they put in that belief to people.
Hey, atheists is a BELIEF that God does not exist right? Since it is a believe, then it is FAITH. And the followers are called existentialist. Just as much who believe in God are called Christians.
I have noticed that atheists seem to be attacking Christians only? Why aren’t they attacking the Muslims and Jews who, like the Christians, believe in a supernatural being that cannot they cannot prove? Scaredy cat? Or is it merely that atheism only disguise itself as ‘not believe in a God” but in reality is anti-Christian?
To add more: Why aren’t the atheists pwning those who still strongly believe if manananaggal, nuno sa punso, tikabalang, capre, diwata…Why are you scared that you are going to criticize the prehispanic belief of Filipinos that live up to date?
I guess the more appropriate name for atheisms is anti-Christian and not really anti-theist.
Amper, I don’t think you’ve read the initial post nor the comments at all. There were no reference to anything christian/catholic. It was a direct rebuke to anything that had a “god” as a central concept.
Obviously, you’re a prime example of somebody who doesn’t even care to read and just posts random comments like crazy. The appropriate name for someone like you is IDIOT.
Amper – “where the heaven“? (snicker)
You say:
“In science: things are deemed a fact unless it has been unproven”. Wrong. “Things” (meaning scientific facts) are hypothesized, then progressively become more accepted as more evidence comes in, but everything is provisional – if evidence turns the other way, scientists will drop one “thing” in favor of another. Google Kuhn, Popper, and Lakatos, they’re very informative in case you were really interested in the subject.
You say: “Because of the lack of evidence, they simply say ‘Force/Energy is neither created nor destroyed’. Science can’t fully explain force and energy that’s why they put in that belief to people.”
Huh? Energy remains constant in an isolated (closed) system, but scientists are still debating whether the universe itself constitutes a closed system. What is it about religion that it gives ignorant people the confidence to bullshit about things they don’t know anything about?
Amper, please don’t parade your ignorance in front of everyone. Nakakahiya.
Amper: “In science: things are deemed a fact unless it has been unproven. The atheists society has up to date has not been able to successfully disprove God as much as theists are not still able to prove God’s existence.”
1. Wrong. Science requires evidence. No evidence means it won’t be considered unless part of a model to be tested.
2. “Atheists Society.” We don’t have that. Unless you’re one of those who think we’re organized under anti-Pope Richard Dawkins.
We have an egroup though 
3. Similar to what I keep telling jester, the burden of proof lies on the positive claimant. If you say there’s a god, show the evidence.
Amper: “The problem with SOME atheists is that they subscribe much the their emotions(which they mistake as their own logic) that real logic. Even a non-fanatic religious person who does not shove their belief into the throat of the atheists are easily angered just because of difference in belief.”
Really now. It’s clear from the posts who’s getting carried away by emotions. Speaking for myself I’m not angered by difference in belief, I’m angered by willful ignorance and an insistence that faith trumps everything in arguments.
Amper: “I have noticed that atheists seem to be attacking Christians only? Why aren’t they attacking the Muslims and Jews who, like the Christians, believe in a supernatural being that cannot they cannot prove? Scaredy cat? Or is it merely that atheism only disguise itself as ‘not believe in a God†but in reality is anti-Christian?”
Because this is a Filipino board where most of the posters are Catholic/Christian. Islam is even more silly but since no Muslims are showing up here to argue, we stick to Christianity. Besides, most of us were raised in that religion so we’re more familiar with it’s shortcomings. Anyway, the arguments apply to all religions.
Amper: “Why aren’t the atheists pwning those who still strongly believe if manananaggal, nuno sa punso, tikabalang, capre, diwata…Why are you scared that you are going to criticize the prehispanic belief of Filipinos that live up to date?”
Because they don’t proselytize. Because they don’t force the government to alter state policy to fit their beliefs. We’re not scared, they’re just not as significant / influential as the major religions. Again, the rules of evidence apply.
Oh, and atheism is a belief the same way bald is a hair color.
The cool thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. It’s simultaneously the sum of human knowledge and the process to acquire and test that knowledge. In science all knowledge is provisional, meaning, what it says is correct unless new evidence is presented or a better theory is formulated.
@ comment #110
sir bakit mo nasabing inaccurate ang bible?
^ Not addressed to me but check the creation stories (yup, two versions in the same book) for starters. The bible makes claims that are consistent with it being the stories/mythology of a bronze age tribe instead of the truth from god that it claims to be.
pilosopotasyo: “sir bakit mo nasabing inaccurate ang bible?”
Start with Genesis – two different (and incompatible) creation stories. A “worldwide” flood that isn’t backed up by current geological data. Tapos how long ago was this supposed to have happened? Sabi ng iba, 6,000 years ago. But there were already recorded human settlements more than that, so obviously that’s not correct.
pilosopotasyo, sa palagay mo ba dapat literal ang basa natin sa bibliya?
@mr. micketymoc & mr. missingpoints.
* more talk, more mistakes.
* if, i’m making ‘palusot’. ang laki ng problem niyo. come and get me.
* I’m defending myself? you’re on the offense then? nice rhetorics.
* yes, both of you talk sensible things and i don’t. i do not know how it comes though
* ho insulted first? scroll up and let’s see.
sorry for my misspelling
re 124 – “more than that” = “before that” hehehe
re 126 – you’re still here?
Hey, atheists is a BELIEF that God does not exist right? Since it is a believe, then it is FAITH. And the followers are called existentialist. Just as much who believe in God are called Christians.(Amper)
Existentialism is a philosophical movement. It is a very popular doctrine, especially after the second World War. It’s very widespread in Europe. Jean Paul Sartre (extremely popular existentialist philosopher) made existentialism easy to understand for the common “tao”.
Your logic is wrong, to be frank. Existentialism both haunts/attracts the atheists and believers.
re 126 – you’re still here? (Micketymoc)
this is absurd. unless, you’re my commander…
xeno: “Hey, atheists is a BELIEF that God does not exist right?”
Wrong. Atheism is a LACK of belief. I do not believe “there is no god,” I just don’t “believe in god.” It is a belief in the same way bald is a hair color or not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Existentialism is a different thing. Do not conflate the two.
xeno:
* more talk, more mistakes.
Yup. As you’ve shown to everyone reading this thread.
xeno:
* if, i’m making ‘palusot’. ang laki ng problem niyo. come and get me.
I’m trying to but I can’t reach you because of all your palusot.
)
xeno:
* I’m defending myself? you’re on the offense then? nice rhetorics.
You waste so many posts explaining why you’re not posting your reasons for thinking the original article is one-sided, instead of just telling us why.
xeno:
* yes, both of you talk sensible things and i don’t. i do not know how it comes though
The second sentence just proves the first.
xeno:
* who insulted first? scroll up and let’s see.
Ok I’ll bite. Which post of mine/micketymoc did you find insulting?
Oh, and while you’re at it, why not post your explanation as to why the original post is one-sided?
xeno: “Hey, atheists is a BELIEF that God does not exist right?â€
Existentialism is a different thing. Do not conflate the two.
(mr. missingpoints)
you are confused. go back when you have corrected this error.
xeno:
* more talk, more mistakes.
Yup. As you’ve shown to everyone reading this thread.
(mr. missingpoints)
Ah, are you sure you’ve solicited everyone’s opinion here?
I would be glad to know.
xeno:
* if, i’m making ‘palusot’. ang laki ng problem niyo. come and get me.
I’m trying to but I can’t reach you because of all your palusot.
) (mr. missingpoints)
If reaching me is impossible, then why try the nonsense?
So, you know pala na I’m making palusot. So, pity because you admit you can’t reach me.
xeno:
* who insulted first? scroll up and let’s see.
Ok I’ll bite. Which post of mine/micketymoc did you find insulting? (mr. Missingpoints)
you should read. anyway, it’s you who first raised the ‘insult’ issue.
Oh, and while you’re at it, why not post your explanation as to why the original post is one-sided? (Mr. Missingpoints)
I lost my interest in the original issue. Your kind is not the kind I want to share my intelligence (on the article..’The Arrogance of Faith’)
you need to reflect. You need to correct your attitude. Ask me why? Don’t ask. Just proceed with your logic.
@mr. missingpoints.
I suggest that you read carefully and..with depths.
you’ve already committed lots of mistakes.
ah,anyway, you’re excited that i’m making palusot. but, i advice you to have good reading comprehension (careful reading). i don’t know how many times you are mis-representing my thoughts here. how criminal is this act…
Someone’s getting free traffic.
While I agree with several points mentioned. I do not think that the tone of writing and replying to comments was appropriate at all.
A little respect.
Alas, missingpoints, your wit is wasted on the witless. Let’s not feed the troll. Bye, xeno, it was fun while it lasted.
Ozy, maybe it’s just me, but isn’t it bad manners to lecture a blog owner on the tone he wishes to employ with his commenters?
xeno: “i don’t know how many times you are mis-representing my thoughts here. how criminal is this act”
Misrepresenting? You haven’t even shared your thoughts. Also, asserting that you’re intelligent doesn’t make it so.
@ comment # 124 of sir micketymoc:
1.Start with Genesis – two different (and incompatible) creation stories:
as i read the bible the first “story” of creation is the step by step account of creation while the second “story” is the summary.
A “worldwide†flood that isn’t backed up by current geological data:
how did fossils of sea creature end up on top of the mountain?
heto pa po ang mga nakalap kong nagpapatunay ng “accuracy” ng bibliya:
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
hindi natin maitatanggi na ang komposisyon ng tao ay gaya ng sa alabok ng lupa. ang mga elemento ng komposisyon ng ating katawan (oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium,phosphorus, potassium, sulfur,chlorine, sodium, magnesium, iron,cobalt, copper, zinciodine, selenium at fluorine) ay pawang matatagpuan din sa komposisyon ng lupa!
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
ng makuhanan ng litrato ang mundo ay nung 1960s lamang ngunit pansinin nyo ang sinabi dito,alam na ng bibliya na ang mundo ay bilog! kagilagilalas di po ba?
at ang kamangha mangha sa lahat……
Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
wala pang siyentipiko ng isulat ang bibliya pero nilahad na dito na ang mundo ay nakalutang sa wala! tsamba? hindi siguro.
1. Do you have any idea how many creation myths describe men as coming from dust/dirt/clay?
2. The earth is an oblate spheroid, not a circle.
3. The earth doesn’t “hang,” it revolves and rotates.
Anyhoo, this is just a case of someone appropriating random verses. Anything ambiguous can be shoehorned to fit anything. Tsamba nga lang talaga.
Neither of the creation stories gets evolutionary* development quite right and you’d have to bend a lot to explain the creation in seven days.
===========
*Yeah, I went there. Get ready for “it’s just a theory” posts.
@ mr.missingpoints.
ah, so you are justifying your nonsense?
look at this how apparent your “illiteracy” is.
from #130
xeno: “Hey, atheists is a BELIEF that God does not exist right?â€
Existentialism is a different thing. Do not conflate the two.
(mr. missingpoints)
Did I tell the thing in juxtaposition to my name? in some sense you are a criminal.criminal in the sense that you are really misrepresenting me.yet you are justifying your nonsense. how about that?
Alas, missingpoints, your wit is wasted on the witless. Let’s not feed the troll. Bye, xeno, it was fun while it lasted.(Mr.Micketymoc)
Your language is common to people like you.I am not surprised. Many of your kinds, I knew.
For the sake of argumentation, where are your wits,the two of you? …useful question somehow.
Misrepresenting? You haven’t even shared your thoughts. Also, asserting that you’re intelligent doesn’t make it so
@mr.missingpoints.
I don’t want to ‘play’ with your name-handle.alas, you committed lots of mistakes. you really miss-many-points. that could be apt for your name.
you do not even know what a thought is?
aren’t my postings here thoughts?
Is the issue here about intelligence? intelligence naturally reflects supposed to be in the ongoing issue. your witless-ness is reflecting. i’m sorry to say this,but this is the outcome of your replies to me and i can prove it. you can not prove though that i’m witless.
Benj, I think one of my comments was placed in moderation. Please approve that one and delete this one. Thanks!
xeno:”you can not prove though that i’m witless”
Oh, your posts are proof enough.
xeno:â€you can not prove though that i’m witlessâ€
Oh, your posts are proof enough.(mr.missingpoints)
you speak of proof and yet you can not show how you arrive at your proof. Please show how.
what a nonsense statement (yours above)
“Yeah, I went there. Get ready for ‘it’s just a theory’ posts.”
It’s deja vu – all over again.
pilosopotasyo, how old is the Earth?
xeno: “Please show how.”
1. xeno posts something about the article being “one-sided”
2. missingpoints and micketymoc ask him to elaborate
3. xeno asks missingpoints and micketymoc to “reflect” on the article
4. missingpoints and micketymoc ask him to elaborate again and tell him that he needs to put up or shut up
5. xeno fulminates and makes excuses not to post, saying that they don’t “deserve” his intelligence
6. the thread has evolved into proving how witless xeno really is. fun, but useless
@missingpoints
1. xeno posts something about the article being “one-sidedâ€
* this i do not deny!
2. missingpoints and micketymoc ask him to elaborate
* this i do not deny. although, i lost my interest. i do not waste the original issue to your kinds. go back and reassess your attitude. i do not miss intellectual discussion when presumptuous people make superficial judgment. i can elaborate. i can even show how superficial your comments are. however, wisdom ‘tells’ me that i refrain from the original issue. the issue now here is, how could get out from the obnoxious hole you created. this becomes a moral issue, not a mere logical issue. palusot pala ako e. yun ang alam niyo. so then, if you have wits, why reach me if i’m no longer reachable. you lack wits and common sense. on the other hand, you can’t prove otherwise.
3. xeno asks missingpoints and micketymoc to “reflect†on the article
*this i do not deny! the suggestion is a very sincere and frank one. this is not as if on the first place, i’m demonstrating my intelligence deeper than both of you. the unfortunate is…you reacted superficially.
4. missingpoints and micketymoc ask him to elaborate again and tell him that he needs to put up or shut up
* this i do not deny. however, you are plain absurd for i’m in complete control of myself and i can reply to some of your superficial descriptions of me.
5. xeno fulminates and makes excuses not to post, saying that they don’t “deserve†his intelligence
* this i must show as a kind of senselessness on your part.
first: my excuse is not an excuse that i may not have the logic to show how the article becomes one sided.
second: both of you (mr. missingpoints and micketymoc) are really not sensible to waste my time. did i committ any logical fallacy here? can you show? none! it is my absolute right to refrain from the original discussion brought by your presumptuous attitude. it is my right to find more sensible people i can possibly share. i know your kind. the fact that i know your kind gives me the wisdom not to waste my time with you. this decision is my absolute right. show your wit here, otherwise.
6. the thread has evolved into proving how witless xeno really is. fun, but useless
* the question here is..how did you arrive with your statement above?
here is an another bullte for you…
the truth that you are being unreprentant into misrepresenting my thoughts is strongly indicating that you are witless and very unprofessional.
proof:xeno: “Hey, atheists is a BELIEF that God does not exist right?â€
Wrong. Atheism is a LACK of belief. I do not believe “there is no god,†I just don’t “believe in god.†It is a belief in the same way bald is a hair color or not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Existentialism is a different thing. Do not conflate the two. (#130)by mr. missingpoints.
xeno: did i say the thing in juxtaposition to my name above? you are confused. you need to adjust your reading ability. Amper made that statement..proof: comment # 116.
show how you arrive at your judgments against me with your wit. i’ve shown mine.
xeno: “go back and reassess your attitude.”
Right back atcha.
xeno:”the fact that i know your kind gives me the wisdom not to waste my time with you.”
Yet you keep on posting… Brilliant.
he’s not even satisfied with keeping his grievances to this one site – he’s begun exporting it to other blogs as well.
Here’s his new spin: he was about to explain himself, “but some witless people there ridiculed my comment.” He would have answered earlier if it weren’t for those pesky “unprofessional” atheist bloggers! Riiiiiiiiight. Whatever you say.
@mr. missingpoints/micketymoc
* #’s 151/152
these were showing their inadequacy. it is becoming apparent. they can not show how witty they are. they can not give sensible retort to my comment #150.
@mr. missingpoints. how about you are simply denying your fault? this fact is indicating how disoriented you are. sigh*
^ So hindi pala siya nagpapalusot. Iyakin lang talaga
)
he’s not even satisfied with keeping his grievances to this one site – he’s begun exporting it to other blogs as well.(#152 frm. mr. micketymoc)
this guy is even disoriented and lack good language to convey the truth of the issue.
1. he’s thinking that my thoughts here were mere grievances. they can not see their own witlessness. that their replies were sort of grievances as well. so, the logic here is: do not utter the term grievances because what follows is that grievances vs. grievances. this is a nonsense saying. i’m commenting here of course, to expose your superficial attitude and knowledge.
2. he’s speaking of the term ’satisfied’. this guy is truly a witless guy. if he’s witty, he should know the level of my being satisfied. pity, my being satisfied is distinct from his being satisfied. we’ve different psyche make-up. this guy is going in the territory of psychological/physiological issue which is not the issue.
3. he’s telling to other people here that i’m ‘exporting’ to other blogs. this guy really lacks good language to convey the truth. and besides, he is disoriented. my right to discuss this thing to any other blogs is not a violation. it is a case where other people (not of their superficial kind) of better language and/or logic to convey their thoughts on the issue. the irony is, micketymoc, is self-refuting himself. if he thinks that my exporting of the issue in another blog is nonsense(this i do not argue that he’s suggesting the limitation of the issue just here in this blog) then, why he even ‘export’ his own reaction there? i must answer that..that is his right. as well, it is my right to elaborate things on any other part of the net about the issue just as we read articles elsewhere in the net and making comments or reactions on them.
the two guys were good at nit-picking.
@xeno
No, you did not commit any “logical fallacy” when you chose not to explain your initial statement. Of course it is your right not to explain yourself. I am not questioning that.
However, the fact that you refuse to further explain your side casts doubt on your intentions and/or ability to explain. We have no idea whether you actually have a case to make or if you’re just bullshitting. We’re at post #154 and you still haven’t contributed anything to the actual topic of this thread. Instead we’ve spend the past dozen posts arguing whether you do have something up your sleeve.
So to recap: yes, you have the right to refuse to explain your side and we have the right to ridicule you for that.
Unless you wish to actually explain why the original post is “one-sided.” In which case we’d be glad to discuss and debate you on it.
@missingpoints
Unless you wish to actually explain why the original post is “one-sided.†In which case we’d be glad to discuss and debate you on it.
*this guy do not understand english. i stop envolving myself from the logic of the orignal issue. my reason has been uttered on my previous comments above. i hate repeating it. only an illiterate kind need an another form of language to know it. if i call these guys as illiterate, they of course get hurt.
the issue now here is a moral issue, but of course, a moral issue discussed with the frame-work of being logical. lots of illogical thoughts were prevalent between these guys (missingpoints/micketymoc).
@missingpoints is even unrepentant. he is covering his bull**** offense by misrepresenting my thoughts. #116/130. your being superficial is conspicuous. and yet, this fact is that he thinks nothing has gone wrong with his offense. how stupid this guy is.
sorry for my misspelling again
“he’s speaking of the term ’satisfied’. this guy is truly a witless guy. if he’s witty, he should know the level of my being satisfied. pity, my being satisfied is distinct from his being satisfied…. this i do not deny. although, i lost my interest. i do not waste the original issue to your kinds. go back and reassess your attitude. i do not miss intellectual discussion when presumptuous people make superficial judgment. i can elaborate. i can even show how superficial your comments are…. these were showing their inadequacy. it is becoming apparent. they can not show how witty they are.”
I’ve given up making sense of xeno’s explanations, and have instead amused myself by reciting these lines in the style of Mojo Jojo.
I half expect the Powerpuff Girls to bust down my door any minute.
xeno: “sorry for my misspelling again”
Believe me, spelling is the least of your problems
)
“this guy do not understand english.”
You mean this guy DOES not understand English. Jesus Christ, xeno, if you’re going to criticize somebody’s English usage, you better make sure your own use of the language isn’t laughably inept!
“i stop envolving myself from the logic of the orignal issue.”
That’s not our problem. We’re still very much “envolved” (LOL) with the original issue, and we don’t give a flying fuck if you think you have a “moral” case against our criticism, bottom line is, you haven’t explained your side, which justifies our continued belief that you’re too stupid to reason your way through.
“my reason has been uttered on my previous comments above. i hate repeating it.”
We heard you the first time. We just don’t believe you.
WE DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR STUPID FUCKING “MORAL ISSUE”. We just care about your missing explanation of the “one-sided” comment.
Stop making excuses, and either tell us why you think benj’s argument is one-sided, or prepare to be continuously mocked for your stupidity.
4.54 billion years, sir.
Thank you, pilosopotasyo. If we were to take the Bible literally, though, that’s about 4.54 billion years off. Literalist scholars like Bishop Ussher have calculated the Earth according to the Bible at about 6-10,000 years old. Science and a literal reading of the Bible cannot be reconciled – and that reading of 1 day=1 million years doesn’t make any sense, either, and at best it sounds strained.
I can only look at the Bible this way: a book of its time, written by Bronze Age Middle Eastern citizens, and limited by its writers’ perspective. No divine inspiration, no “predictions”. The explanations of science following the Bible’s predictions sounds rather ad hoc to me, and it’s easy to apply to other books if you know how. (The Quran probably supports space flight if you know where to look!)
GRABE ANG HABA NG FILLER!!!
“this guy do not understand english.â€
You mean this guy DOES not understand English. Jesus Christ, xeno, if you’re going to criticize somebody’s English usage, you better make sure your own use of the language isn’t laughably inept!(micketymoc)
this guy is really stupid. i do not consider myself as perfect in the english language (i.e. spelling) but, his dirty trick is his only way to evade the moral issue. lame excuse. read better, stupid guy. i’ve raised lots of sensible questions but he is good in evading.
WE DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR STUPID FUCKING “MORAL ISSUEâ€. We just care about your missing explanation of the “one-sided†comment.
Stop making excuses, and either tell us why you think benj’s argument is one-sided, or prepare to be continuously mocked for your stupidity.(miketymoc)
what can expect from your fucking idiocy? your idiocy is clear. you can not even know that the issue has become a moral issue. a narrow and shallow minded one.
xeno: “sorry for my misspelling againâ€
Believe me, spelling is the least of your problems
)
(missingpoints)
ah, this guy who is ‘illiterate’. an unrepentant of his illiteracy. he can not even accept his obvious error (#116 & #130). you should have been technically blown-out from the argumentation.
Stop making excuses, and either tell us why you think benj’s argument is one-sided, or prepare to be continuously mocked for your stupidity.(micketymoc)
you are ‘illiterate’ too. i stop elaborating myself on the original issue (the logical issue of the article above)because your kind is stupid (take note that you made the first move). i do not need to spend my enery and time with your stupid kind (micketymoc and missingpoints). sigh* you do not know how to read. you lack reading capability. lol. scatter your dirty language wherever and whenever you want. still, you do not know how to read.
missingpoints Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 10:11 am
@missingpoints
No, you did not commit any “logical fallacy†when you chose not to explain your initial statement. Of course it is your right not to explain yourself. I am not questioning that. ]
*** then why do you try the impossible? if my right not to speak about the logical issue of the article (The Arrogance of Faith) because of your own stupidity? will you lose something? will I lose something? why then you keep on saying that I’m making excuses? so, are you not satisfied with your belief that i’m making excuses? then why then you keep on going with this nonsense? if you think deeper, maybe you can have a better perspective that the issue is a moral issue.
@missingpoints
However, the fact that you refuse to further explain your side casts doubt on your intentions and/or ability to explain. We have no idea whether you actually have a case to make or if you’re just bullshitting. We’re at post #154 and you still haven’t contributed anything to the actual topic of this thread. Instead we’ve spend the past dozen posts arguing whether you do have something up your sleeve.
***pity. yo can not accept the truth that you lack good reading and even you are repentant of misrepresenting my thoughts. and you are even defending your obvious mistake. there would be no hope of intellectual gaining if your attitude is like that. look. to make things easier for you (and micketymoc) I label the issue of the article ‘The Arrogance of FAith’ as the Logical Issue (all the issues necessarily (of course logical) related to it. And I label the present issue between us as the Moral issue (why moral? because the issue now is how we deliver or express ourselves here where are character or attitude are being involved or the main point. of course, this issue is also being disputed with our knowledge of what is being logical is.
You still believe that i do not have something in my mind to say on the logical issue. you still believe that i’m making excuses. what you can not see is, i stop myself into speaking of the logical issue because of your stupid characters. if you believe that i’m making excuse or i do not have something in my mind, what then are you trying to point at me. if you believe, then why waste your time just as you think i;m wasting my time with you? are’nt you contradicting yourself? aren’t you still aware that the issue now is a moral issue? and micketymoc do not know that this issue becomes a moral issue?
So to recap: yes, you have the right to refuse to explain your side and we have the right to ridicule you for that.
Unless you wish to actually explain why the original post is “one-sided.†In which case we’d be glad to discuss and debate you on it.
missingpoints Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 10:11 am
@missingpoints
No, you did not commit any “logical fallacy†when you chose not to explain your initial statement. Of course it is your right not to explain yourself. I am not questioning that. ]
*** then why do you try the impossible? if my right not to speak about the logical issue of the article (The Arrogance of Faith) because of your own stupidity? will you lose something? will I lose something? why then you keep on saying that I’m making excuses? so, are you not satisfied with your belief that i’m making excuses? then why then you keep on going with this nonsense? if you think deeper, maybe you can have a better perspective that the issue is a moral issue.
@missingpoints
However, the fact that you refuse to further explain your side casts doubt on your intentions and/or ability to explain. We have no idea whether you actually have a case to make or if you’re just bullshitting. We’re at post #154 and you still haven’t contributed anything to the actual topic of this thread. Instead we’ve spend the past dozen posts arguing whether you do have something up your sleeve.
***pity. yo can not accept the truth that you lack good reading and even you are repentant of misrepresenting my thoughts. and you are even defending your obvious mistake. there would be no hope of intellectual gaining if your attitude is like that. look. to make things easier for you (and micketymoc) I label the issue of the article ‘The Arrogance of FAith’ as the Logical Issue (all the issues necessarily (of course logical) related to it. And I label the present issue between us as the Moral issue (why moral? because the issue now is how we deliver or express ourselves here where are character or attitude are being involved or the main point. of course, this issue is also being disputed with our knowledge of what is being logical is.
You still believe that i do not have something in my mind to say on the logical issue. you still believe that i’m making excuses. what you can not see is, i stop myself into speaking of the logical issue because of your stupid characters. if you believe that i’m making excuse or i do not have something in my mind, what then are you trying to point at me. if you believe, then why waste your time just as you think i;m wasting my time with you? are’nt you contradicting yourself? aren’t you still aware that the issue now is a moral issue? and micketymoc do not know that this issue becomes a moral issue?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xeno: “aren’t you still aware that the issue now is a moral issue? and micketymoc do not know that this issue becomes a moral issue?”
No, it hasn’t.
You’re the only one saying that it has become a moral issue.
You’re the only one trying to change the subject.
You’re the only one who refuses to answer the oh-so-simple question that missingpoints and I have been posing from the beginning:
Why is benj’s argument one-sided?
Is that so difficult to answer?
Were you so blinded by our initial mild criticism that you can focus on nothing but your perceived sense of offense?
Are you really so fucking dense not to realize that we have no patience with an exceedingly obvious attempt to divert the issue?
Are you so ARROGANT to believe that you can single-handedly decide what the issue is and what it isn’t?
Grow up.
Answer the question.
With every post you make that avoids the question we’ve asked from the beginning, you prove even more that you’re extremely stupid, exceedingly slow-witted, and absolutely, ABSOLUTELY proof of benj’s point: that idiocy breeds arrogance, and the idiocy of the religious breeds INCOMPARABLE arrogance.
xeno:”then why do you try the impossible? if my right not to speak about the logical issue of the article (The Arrogance of Faith) because of your own stupidity? will you lose something? will I lose something? why then you keep on saying that I’m making excuses? so, are you not satisfied with your belief that i’m making excuses? then why then you keep on going with this nonsense?”
There are two possibilities: (1) you have nothing and are harping on this “moral issue” to divert attention, in which case you’re an idiot or (2) you really have something but refuse to share it because you felt offended, in which case you’re a pompous, arrogant ass.
So which is it?
My money’s on (1), although I’ll bet he’ll claim it’s (2) without admitting to the pompous, arrogant ass part. Which of course, he is.
My money’s on (1), although I’ll bet he’ll claim it’s (2) without admitting to the pompous, arrogant ass part. Which of course, he is.(micketymoc)
of course you two stupid always committ straw man. go back to some of my previous comment where you’ve been actually annhilated and you were just already saving your faces. lame excuse. wicked sick.
missingpoints Says:
June 1st, 2008 at 8:26 pm
xeno:â€then why do you try the impossible? if my right not to speak about the logical issue of the article (The Arrogance of Faith) because of your own stupidity? will you lose something? will I lose something? why then you keep on saying that I’m making excuses? so, are you not satisfied with your belief that i’m making excuses? then why then you keep on going with this nonsense?â€
There are two possibilities: (1) you have nothing and are harping on this “moral issue†to divert attention, in which case you’re an idiot or (2) you really have something but refuse to share it because you felt offended, in which case you’re a pompous, arrogant ass.
So which is it? (missingpoints)
of course you are known for your inability to understand my replies.
1. this is a moral issue. still your stupidity can not grasp it. lol. you’re telling me that i am an idiot. your strawman argument is your tactic just to cover your obvious mistakes which you can not accept. #116/#130 were evidence. you can not show something against me that i maybe technically lost in the argumentation. agaibn. twice stupid because you said that i’m saying that this is already a moral argument..lol again. of course this event is already a moral argument. in waht sense that i must divert if the fact that what’s happening to us is a moral issue. stupid and ‘illiterate’. my harsh language is due to your own stupidity. i do not regret.
2. what to you think of yourself. you can not still graps what i mean. what are you or who are you in m life to waste my intelligence on the logical issue. idiot. you can not still get what i mean..you arrogant ass-full brainless superficial and shallow character.
@171 bymicketmoc
go back and read my prveious replies why i stop to comment on the logical issue. pity, but you are stupid to understand my statements. this is how it goes. what power you have that i must say something on the logical issue? idiot. the ultimate truth is that i disengage myself on the logical issue because of your stupidity. i do not want to waste my intelligence on the logical issue just because of your idiot kind. then cry and kick your ass so that i may say my side on the L.I. poor walnut brain guy.
xeno: “of course you are known for your inability to understand my replies.”
Well, your terrible english doesn’t help but I understand you quite well.
The problem is that you keep insisting that we follow your lead. This is not a “moral issue,” the conduct on this thread is governed by the rules of the blog owner, not by any other poster. If Benj allows this, then it’s fine. You can pout all you want but that’s the way these blogs work.
I understand you, I just think you’re wrong. Just because you keep insisting you’re right or that you “annihilated” us doesn’t make it so.
“the ultimate truth is that i disengage myself on the logical issue because of your stupidity.”
HAHAHAHAHA that’s rich. Mr. Evasive can’t answer a perfectly intelligent question, but claims superior intelligence nonetheless.
Yeah, yeah, I heard you the last hundred or so times, you say you can’t answer because of the “moral issue”. Too bad your horrible English and your squid-ink tactics proclaim otherwise.
“i do not want to waste my intelligence on the logical issue just because of your idiot kind.”
Waste? Was there any intelligence there to begin with, much less any available to waste?
Let me repeat, xeno you twatwhistle:
We heard you. Moral issue, waste your intelligence, bla bla bla.
We don’t believe you.
Now I suggest you answer the question like a man, or go away and stop wasting your energy trying to outrun our arguments on an empty brain.
@micketymoc and missingpoints
hahaha..still these two guys were so stupid not to understand my point. i quit from the logicalissue because of their own stupidity. they can not still get. if they thought i dont have something to say,then why they dont leave it like that and enjoy it..lols…they can not still accept the fact that i do not want to waste my intelligence on the logical issue becauseof their stupidity. shallow and sick.
of course these two guys were fond of committing the strawman argument..they attack my grammar (hehe,let this site becomes a publish book-free from grammar error..that’s what you want) and yet it is obvious that my thoughts were clear and that they just can not accept the fact that i do notlike their dullkind to waste my intelligence on the logical issue. speaking of arrogance which they are thinking of me…see your ‘ownself’ on this thing…stupid two of you.
@xeno
A strawman requires me setting up an easy argument (which you didn’t make) to demolish easily. Calling you on your terrible isn’t a strawman. Ad hominem, maybe, but not a strawman. Review your logic classes.
Again, we understand your thoughts, we just don’t believe them. You claim that you don’t want to waste your “intelligence” on us, right? We say that’s bullshit as you haven’t shown any sign of intelligence yet.
Yup. To credibly claim one’s refusal to “waste one’s intelligence” on another party, one must show some evidence of intelligence in the first place.
Again, we understand your thoughts, we just don’t believe them. You claim that you don’t want to waste your “intelligence†on us, right? We say that’s bullshit as you haven’t shown any sign of intelligence yet.(missingpoints)
you pretend that you understand me. if you did, you havent shown any sign of witlessness and disorientedness. then let it be. believe what you believe and i do mine. hehe…your unrepentant/unethical character is clear. #116 and 130) is an evidence. pity.
Yup. To credibly claim one’s refusal to “waste one’s intelligence†on another party, one must show some evidence of intelligence in the first place.(micketymoc)
of course this just goes on and on and you just let me do what i do not like to do in your favor. to show my thoughts on the logical issue..sick..because you just try the impossible now. i do not really waste my intelligence to your dull kind.. this is like saying…’oh, pls. xeno say your say on the logical issue, else you are witless and/or unintelligent guy’. then? if that’s what you believe then enjoy it. i just see the two of you ( missingpoints) of the dull kind. witless and superficial. that’s enough for my observation of you. believe what you believe..
xeno: “#116 and 130) is an evidence. pity.”
Wait… so your whole beef is with me mis-attributing Amper’s statement to you? If so I apologize. There, happy?
I hope that settles the “moral” issue. So now let’s hear what you have to say about the “logical” issue. I’m really curious. Let’s see how intelligent you really are.
I hope that settles the “moral†issue. So now let’s hear what you have to say about the “logical†issue. I’m really curious. Let’s see how intelligent you really are.(missingpoint)
* read of what have been said.
No, you haven’t said anything about the “logical” issue – i.e. why Benj’s post is one-sided. Nothing. Zip. Nada.
You’ve insisted from near the beginning that this is a moral issue and a moral issue only, never mind the fact that you leaped onto the “moral” issue without even responding to our cross-examination of your original post.
That’s what we call “changing the subject”, a particularly egregious way of avoiding uncomfortable questions that will reveal one’s ignorance.
Come on. We already know you’re an idiot. So why don’t you proceed from that premise and try to explain, in excruciating xeno-speak, why Benj’s argument is one-sided?
I’m particularly amused by the fact that, as every xeno-licious post reveals him as an idiot, he keeps coming back to expose his idiocy even more.
Is there a Guinness Record for Most Moronic Posts in contention right now? I have to give it to ya, xeno, you’re getting really close.
@micketymoc
hahaha..of course, you’re a flawless stupid. what you want is also to contaminate me with your stupidity.
again…*read of what have been said.
even your rhetorics were insanely conveyed. you can not have the proofs that I’m an idiot. what a real stupid guy
and you’re speaking of cross-examination. lol. i can’t stop laughing. a cross-examination of what? cross-examining the what from a stupid guy? a stupid guy having a cross examination of what?hahahaha
the fact: the more you talk..the more you are exposing your own stupidity.
^^ But nothing has been said. Most of this thread has been about you fulminating on your “moral issue.” You have not provided any argument as to why Benj’s post is “one-sided.”
^^ But nothing has been said. Most of this thread has been about you fulminating on your “moral issue.†You have not provided any argument as to why Benj’s post is “one-sided.â€(missingpoints)
that what makes you stupid! read of what have been said.
OK, tell us, oh wise one – where have you explained your position why benj’s post was one-sided? Just putting the comment number will do.
Oh, and I noticed you just ape every criticism we make. (We say “witless”, you say “witless”; we say “moral”, you say “moral”; we say “stupid”, you say “stupid”, etc. etc.) If you absolutely have to sling insults, please be a bit more original, and invent some of your own. Thank you.
@micketymoc
of course you can not stop being stupid. READ OF WHAT HAVE BEEN SAID. Let your eyes roll! lol!
“read of” what? Ohhhh, I see, the guy who can’t muster enough brain cells to assemble a coherent sentence has the gall to call his intellectual superiors “stupid”. That’s OK, I forgive you, inbred retards like yourself usually can’t help your behavior.
If “READ OF WHAT HAVE BEEN SAID” (lol) is all you can muster, then I guess the case is closed. xeno has officially proven benj’s point, and more besides.
Not only does faith increase arrogance, it decreases intelligence as well.
Swear to Bob that’s it, have a good life, xeno!
read of†what? Ohhhh, I see, the guy who can’t muster enough brain cells to assemble a coherent sentence has the gall to call his intellectual superiors “stupidâ€. That’s OK, I forgive you, inbred retards like yourself usually can’t help your behavior.(micketymoc)
hahaha…you’re fond of nonsense rhetorics huh…you’re salivating with your helpless language…’retard’…can’t muster enough brain cells’…oh…so keep that faith that i’m retard..lol…check your demeanor before you check mine./…hehehe…
(If “READ OF WHAT HAVE BEEN SAID†(lol) is all you can muster, then I guess the case is closed. xeno has officially proven benj’s point, and more besides.)(micketymoc)
read again…stupid! ex. read comment #180..read of what have been said..what a flawless stupid..lol..check my behavior? check yours!
Not only does faith increase arrogance, it decreases intelligence as well. (micketymoc)
you’re losing poise of course…that you speak lots of nonsense proves nothing for your good..lol
So your only point is that you’re too chicken to debate. Fine. You can claim that you’re just withholding your “wisdom” from us but that’s all that is: a claim. A claim made by someone who hasn’t really proven anything online. Not in this thread, nor anywhere else.
Micketymoc and I have been arguing in message boards and posting in our blogs for years; we’re pretty confident about our intellectual capacity.
You, on the other hand, can’t even post a coherent sentence.
Peace out. We’ve hijacked Benj’s bandwidth too long.
Benj, I think you should write next about “Ignorance and Faith” the two sides of the same coin. (Napadaan lang.) cheers!
So your only point is that you’re too chicken to debate.
(missingpoints)
Of course you are too stupid to understand anything.
(Fine. You can claim that you’re just withholding your “wisdom†from us but that’s all that is: a claim. A claim made by someone who hasn’t really proven anything online.)(missingpoints)
hahaha…a kind of you where to waste my logical understanding of the issue? of course, you are stupid to understand. all have been said but you keep on being stupid. you keep your balls rolling. do i need to prove something to you? i do not waste my intelligence to your stupidity.
(Micketymoc and I have been arguing in message boards and posting in our blogs for years; we’re pretty confident about our intellectual capacity.)(missingpoints)
does that mean you knew everything about logic? does that mean that you are sharpened intellectually? what kind of intelligence you possess? how really you know? you pretend you know anything.pity..
(You, on the other hand, can’t even post a coherent sentence.)(missingpoints)
nice dirty tricks! hehe…i may committ grammatical error. but i do not committ stupid fallacies and obvious mistakes like what you do. you lack depths and wit.
You confuse “understanding” with “believing.” We understand what you’re saying (that you don’t want to share your insights with us) we just DON’T BELIEVE YOU (because we think you’re just making excuses).
You confuse “understanding†with “believing.†We understand what you’re saying (that you don’t want to share your insights with us) we just DON’T BELIEVE YOU (because we think you’re just making excuses). (missingpoints)
you are soo funny. you speak of ‘understanding’ and ‘believing’! what an irony. you have the blurred knowledge of the terms. you do not even know how this happens here.i’m laughing because you are actually already very funny because of your stupidity. your lack of depths and common sense makes you stupid. you are not reading of what’s being said. did i tell you not to believe of what you believe in this case? how can you excuse yourself from being stupid if you keep on being stupid-shit in this issue? did i tell you not to assume that i excuse myself from the logical issue. ohhh..man, i pity for you. don’t be stupid ok?
xeno: did i tell you not to believe of what you believe in this case?
So I’m supposed to just take your word for it? Because that’s not how the world works. Do you honestly expect me to believe anything you say just because you said so? How arrogant of you.
[xeno: did i tell you not to believe of what you believe in this case?
So I’m supposed to just take your word for it? Because that’s not how the world works.]missingpoints
Of course your response above stems from your unreflected attitude to my question. The case was that to believe of what you believe should pacify your agitated intellect. That is not really how the world works as you say though…then believe of what you believe..that’s wiser decision.
[Do you honestly expect me to believe anything you say just because you said so? How arrogant of you.]missingpoints
you’re susceptible to grave mistakes. did i say to you to believe what i say? hehe…read intelligently man…read of what the statement ‘believe of what you believe’ means..hehe….it seems that you hide your own arrogance…in my mind you’re arrogant..and i’m arrogant to you…man….do you think your logic shows anything good?
Last word! I win!
I give you five internets!
Five internets for you!
Faith is the symbol of ignorance.
The believer in a deity makes the claim that god exists. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the believer. So far no one has produced any empirical evidence to support the existence of a deity. Of course, there are people who believe in ufos, Santa Claus, elves, gnomes, unicorns, and the tooth fairy. Their belief does not prove the existence of these figments of the imagination.
I respect everyone’s opinion here.
I agree that the existence of a god is hard to quantify, test, and verify, just as hard as how to understand a girl that you love.
I have many kiddy questions in my mind about dinosaurs and the earth: how did the scientist knew that some dinosaurs eat meat? how can they be so sure of the color of the skin of such creatures (during model reconstruction) when they havent seen anything like that in living form in their life?
I also don’t know how the first atom in the whole universe formed, i dont think you guys too will be convinced of the explanation of the scientists.. how does everything in the outer space happened?
I am filled with questions.
Last 2006, I was able to be with 3 nobel price awardees in physics and chemistry in Indianapolis RCA Dome. It is an international gathering for young inventors from all over the world. A student asked a question to the panel on what will happen if a human body will pass inside the black hole.
The panel gave their sincerest answer – but the hell, they’ll never know until they TESTED it right? go out in outer space and try it themselves – THE REAL BLACK HOLE (not the simulations).
And thus I conclude that human logic and reason is insufficient to understand and conceive everything.