Holy shit, this guy can only repeat the same garbage. Maybe he’s really a bot?
Justice (and love etc.) only gives meaning if there is a life form that can define and understand its meaning. Things like justice, love etc. are anthropocentric, and do not make any sense without humans or other forms of life that can define and observe it. Thus, in a universe without life with an analytical capability, these terms do not make any sense, as there is noone present in such a university to even observe or define its characteristics. And in a universe without life, abstract notions like justice are irrelevant. Justice only makes sense as a concept when there is life with species that can understand it. This again points to the sense of justice as an emergent and evolved property, and the implementation of laws etc. as an inherited social construct. There is no a priori reason why this would be god-given.
2 Likes
Cali is finally losing his mind. LOL!! He has regressed through all the higher defensive mechanisms and is now joining the apes in oral rage. LOL! (I feel the pain. Oh, what a wonderful world it would be if we could grind up all the ignorant and feed them to the chickens.)
Hey Cali? Do you think the ‘THICK BLACK TEXT’ is helping any?
Yep!~ Cali has lost his mind. He has given up multisyllabic utterances of Greek and Latin orign for the street slang of a New York taxi driver. ROFLMAO
Now, I could be wrong, but I am betting ‘CAPITALIZATION’ will have the exact same effect as writing in Bold. (EDIT) I also can’t help but wonder if he notices the quotation marks?
Take heart Cali, most of us love and admire your work.
4 Likes
Even if he has understandably resorted to the odd vituperation, I’ve deleted plenty from my responses on here, as I doubt they are any more efficacious in denting the closed religious minds that choose to ignore facts, reason, and logic. I also have a sneaking feeling that some of them, no names, are looking for just such a reaction.
@Calilasseia keep up the good work, plenty of others will be reading, that are seeing the exchange honestly.
1 Like
Why do you think love is sufficient reason to believe a deity exists?
38 days of asking @Sid?
You can also perhaps explain which principle of logic you claim is being violated in this message you sent me? As I have asked you @Sid, and you have ignored this question as well.
An honest poster, with a sound rationale, would not fear answering questions exploring the rationality of their claims. If you’re convinced your claims are rational, and that post suggest you are, then why the refusal to answer?
To help you, HERE is a guide to the most used common logical fallacies.
NB Fallacious arguments are irrational by definition, they are weak or poorly reasoned, as the site explains, and it will help anyone who wishes to understand how to avoid this. FYI I didn’t contribute to the site or to any principles of logic, so your claim that we disagree on what constitutes what is rational is absurd, since something either does or does not adhere to the principles of logic, logic is designed precisely to eliminate such subjective opinions. Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, that is what the word means. FYI no scientific evidence could pass peer review and become part of an accepted scientific theory, if it violated any principle of logic, so if you are disputing peer reviewed scientific evidence (that for example @Calilasseia has shared) you are simply wrong. If you are asserting that claims I have made about the evolution of human emotions are irrational or nor in accordance with the principles of logic, then please demonstrate this, or again I shall have to assume you used the word purely as rhetoric, in a futile attempt to wave away your own use of logical fallacies.
Ask yourself, how often do you go back and check your posts for such errors, how often do you fact check claims for objective evidence to support them, how often do you share that evidence here, or how often are your claims completely unevidenced, like your claims above about love, and about logic, where you offer nothing to evidence or explain why you believe those claims to be true?
You said you came here to learn and because you were curious, well this is a good chance to demonstrate that to be true. You can learn how to create well reasoned, and strong arguments if you do nothing else. Of course if this is not possible for a particular belief, you may want to ask yourself what you should infer from that fact.
I have explained this before to others who imply I am being biased, I don’t disbelieve your claims because I am an atheist, I am an atheist because the claims presented are poorly reasoned, and unsupported by any objective evidence.
Needless to say I will be scrupulously fair, honest and open minded, as I always strive to be, as I care more about whether a believe is true than about any belief, and there is no belief I won’t abandon if either logic or objective evidence demands it, and if I find I have used any logical fallacy I will admit that my argument in that instance was invalid, and edit my post accordingly if I am still able. (there’s a time limit on editing posts)
A refusal to engage will leave only one inference I can make.
1 Like
Define life is an endless debate . It can never be answered definitively because scientific knowledge is always expanding and with it comes an always expanding bigger set of questions that we aren’t even aware of .
I would say that a better way of looking at the question of life is to ask what life is ? That would bring us full circle back to the question of how love, justice etc fit into a philosophy that believes that there is no meaning or purpose . My position is that the burden of proof clearly lays at the feet of the atheist rather than the theist to give a coherent explanation of the qualitative from the position they espouse
It sounds like you are separating yourself from the universe , as if you are standing on the outside looking in ?
1 Like
Then what is all this talk of a lifeless universe? Do you even pay attentiobn to the shit you spew?
3 Likes
I’m only going with what is the prevailing point of view in evolutionary science - Life begins around 4 billion years ago. Big bang theory is around 14 billion years ago . According to generally accepted maths that leaves around 10 billion years of what might be termed lifeless universe . Feel free to correct any of that with any updated news on the origin of life
I’ve already corrected it in a previous post.
1 Like
No you didn’t . According to the generally accepted theory of the origins of life it began around 4 billion years ago . If you have any other information that modifies this then kindly post it . If there is no origin of life then why does evolutionary theory claim there is ?
It evolved, same as every other time you’ve asked, and even if we had no idea, your claim that this evidences a deity is still an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Also atheism is not a philosophy, and you have failed to offer a single word that demonstrates any overarching purpose to life, beyond the subjective purpose humans attach to their lives.
Your position is irrational, since it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, this type of fallacy is most often used by people who have poor reasoning skills, to try and deflect the burden of proof their claims and beliefs have. It won’t become any less irrational from repetition, and since you have failed to address it honestly even once, it also also very dishonest to repeat it as if you don’t know it is illogical.
Easy, no one knows that this planet is the only or the first planet on which life as emerged, you are yet again making a claim, which carries a burden of proof you can’t support.
Another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, you made yet another poorly thought out and unevidenced claim, that the universe was lifeless prior to life emerging on this planet, you can’t possibly know this.
I’m not aware of any such scientific theory, are you using a word as rhetoric again, and dishonestly trying to pretend it is a scientific theory by any chance?
We only know of one instance where life has emerged in this universe, but you have again through poor reasoning, made a sweeping assertion you can’t support, your error is in nit realising that not knowing of any other instances where life has emerged in the universe, does not mean there were and are none.
You simply keep making the same epistemological mistake over and over again, as you haven’t even the most basic understanding of informal logic, or how to reason. You don’t seem to be able to grasp that:
- A belief is the affirmation of a claim.
- All claims and therefore all beliefs, carry an epistemological burden of proof proportional to the nature of the claim.
- That disbelieving a claim is not the same as making a contrary claim, and therefore disbelief does not on its own carry any burden of proof.
- Insisting people disprove your belief, is an known logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Whilst your posts have failed to grasp all 4, you also started with an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and it appears to be all you have, as you use it in almost every argument, and seem unable to offer anything more. Worse still you don’t seem to have the integrity to acknowledge this fact, or correct this basic error in reasoning on which all your arguments are based.
You also ignored this claim you made and my repsonses:
An honest poster, with a sound rationale, would not fear answering questions exploring the rationality of their claims. If you’re convinced your claims are rational, and that post suggest you are, then why the refusal to answer?
To help you, HERE is a guide to the most used common logical fallacies.
NB Fallacious arguments are irrational by definition, they are weak or poorly reasoned, as the site explains, and it will help anyone who wishes to understand how to avoid this. FYI I didn’t contribute to the site or to any principles of logic, so your claim that we disagree on what constitutes what is rational is absurd, since something either does or does not adhere to the principles of logic, logic is designed precisely to eliminate such subjective opinions. Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, that is what the word means. FYI no scientific evidence could pass peer review and become part of an accepted scientific theory, if it violated any principle of logic, so if you are disputing peer reviewed scientific evidence (that for example @Calilasseia has shared) you are simply wrong. If you are asserting that claims I have made about the evolution of human emotions are irrational or nor in accordance with the principles of logic, then please demonstrate this, or again I shall have to assume you used the word purely as rhetoric, in a futile attempt to wave away your own use of logical fallacies.
Ask yourself, how often do you go back and check your posts for such errors, how often do you fact check claims for objective evidence to support them, how often do you share that evidence here, or how often are your claims completely unevidenced, like your claims above about love, and about logic, where you offer nothing to evidence or explain why you believe those claims to be true?
You said you came here to learn and because you were curious, well this is a good chance to demonstrate that to be true. You can learn how to create well reasoned, and strong arguments if you do nothing else. Of course if this is not possible for a particular belief, you may want to ask yourself what you should infer from that fact.
I have explained this before to others who imply I am being biased, I don’t disbelieve your claims because I am an atheist, I am an atheist because the claims presented are poorly reasoned, and unsupported by any objective evidence.
Needless to say I will be scrupulously fair, honest and open minded, as I always strive to be, as I care more about whether a believe is true than about any belief, and there is no belief I won’t abandon if either logic or objective evidence demands it, and if I find I have used any logical fallacy I will admit that my argument in that instance was invalid, and edit my post accordingly if I am still able. (there’s a time limit on editing posts)
A refusal to engage will leave only one inference I can make.
Since you have ignored the unavoidable inference is that you are being deliberately dishonest, by trying to peddle the same irrational arguments.
1 Like
@Sid
Define life is an endless debate
Not really. There is a basic agreed upon premise. **Life is defined as any system capable of performing functions such as eating, metabolizing, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, reproducing, and responding to external stimuli. Our physical body is host to a universe of life.
It can never be answered definitively because scientific knowledge is always expanding and with it comes an always expanding bigger set of questions that we aren’t even aware of . 
This is what I love about science. The curiosity. The search for knowledge. A simple premise can be a starting point. Perhaps you’re confusing categories within “life” … eg “intelligent life” vs “bacteria”
I would say that a better way of looking at the question of life is to ask what life is ?
I need a rewording because “what life is” can be answered with any system capable of performing functions such as eating, metabolizing, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, reproducing, and responding to external stimuli
That would bring us full circle back to the question of how love, justice etc fit into a philosophy that believes that there is no meaning or purpose
Based on this you believe you’ve brought me full circle to a philosophy. Your philosophy. That’s OK but you didn’t 
do so logically SO firstly, meaning or purpose is something a person puts into their life. It can change.
My position is that the burden of proof clearly lays at the feet of the atheist rather than the theist to give a coherent explanation of the qualitative from the position they espouse
So I with-hold belief. That requires a burden of proof? IF this is a standard for “burden of proof” that you adhere to it HAS to be applied everywhere in your life or standard for any information. OTHERWISE it’s dishonest and bias.
For example- my standard for evidence is “small claims court” (think Judge Judy). I apply it to ALL claims including scientific or medical or financial purchases or stories. I have a BIG pile of “I don’t know” sitting in my head waiting for further evidence.
3 Likes
@Sid, although you respond to some posts, you seen unable or unwilling to provide many direct answers to direct questions. I, for one, would very much like to explore more about your theism. You make it very difficult to do so by providing only what sound to me like dodgy answers to pretty simple questions. It’s really hard to understand your reasoning because we can’t get past your initial thoughts.
So, I copied what I asked earlier in an attempt to keep traveling down the road you started by asserting theist values were stolen. Are you willing/able to continue exploring that? Are you willing/able to do so by not answering questions with questions? The mystery and seeming evasiveness are wearing.
Saying no to this is perfectly acceptable, too. Just let me know one way or the other.
2 Likes
Do you think that life has only ever existed on this tiny rock? What makes you think that the human race is so special and that we’re the only intelligent life in the galaxy?
Oh yeah, the Bible.
Ignorance and arrogance defined.
2 Likes
Heh, there have benn numerous news reports of late, to the effect that NASA is planning missions to Europa and Enceladus, in order to determine if there exists indigenous life in the subsurface oceans of those two bodies.
Though of course, NASA isn’t expecting to find little green men, instead they’ll be popping the champagne corks if they find indigenous single celled life forms. The data already obtained about the presence of organic molecules relevant to life here on Earth, is the driving force behind considering it worth spending the money on those missions.
Though in my case, I would consider it even better, if one of those bodies turned out to have its own fully functioning RNA world. That would be a killer blow to all the prebiotic chemistry denialists. It wouldn’t just be me celebrating such a find either - pretty much every contributor to RNA world chemistry research, from Jack Szostak downwards, would also be reaching for the bubbly.
Mind you, until those missions are sent, and we receive data informing us of what’s present in the subsurface oceans of those bodies, thre’s still scope for some interesting science fiction to be written, including fiction involving an entire Ediacaran style biota living there. Though if NASA’s space missions find that, this will really put the cat among the pigeons.
Of course, I’ve already covered peer reviewed scientific papers documenting that relevant organic molecules are not only present in meteorites and interstellar gas clouds, but that synthesis thereof under the requisite conditions replicated in the laboratory has already been demonstrated. Organic molecules implicated in terrestrial life are abundant in the universe, so it would be strange indeed if Earth was the only body in the universe harbouring life.
It is, of course, possible that Earth is one of the first bodies to acquire a substantial biosphere, and any others that have done so are simply too far dispersed for us to know anything about them. But the ubiquity of organic chemistry lends credence to the idea that life should not only be present elsewhere, but potentially in sufficient abundance for accessible entities to supply us with useful data on the matter. By “accessible” here, I mean of course bodies providing relevant spectroscopic data, as opposed to bodies we can actually visit such as Enceladus, and the JWST is already serving up some interesting findings in this vein.
Meanwhile, indulging some humour for a moment, I pondered the idea of creating a cartoon series based on the recent crash of the Beresheet lunar spacecraft from Israel, which carried with it a cargo of Tardigrades. It occurred to me that Jewish Tardigrades In Space would be a fun comic to write. 
Though I have to admit that lunar rock wouldn’t provide much of a diet for them, though they wouldn’t have to worry about it being Kosher …
2 Likes
They espouse a lack of belief in your as yet completely unevidenced claim a deity exists, is possible, and caused stuff…
Your ball, Bullwinkle…
2 Likes
I’ve already cited the electromagneteic spectrum as an example of this. Is he going to engage in honest discourse for once in his miserable life?
2 Likes