The problem is that your answers are divided into multiple out-of-context points that are hard to read, and many times they are flawed themselves. Furthermore, you edit your responses later, hours later, for even larger answers, making it even harder to read them. I try to offer clear, short, direct answers to facilitate the debate, while you post infinite out-of-context answers that vary over time.
So, no, I don’t read your answers because, apart from unnecessary personal attacks and assertions, they are extremely painful to read. It’s not because of the quality of the arguments, but rather because of the way they are presented.
When you stop dividing biology and sentience you may understand why inspiration can only be driven by intellect. Complete unity of mind and body is necessary for inspiration. That’s why it unpredictable, sometimes it is good conditions, sometimes it is bad conditions. But a full body response is what is driving it.
On the contrary, I very carefully quoted your posts, and very specifically address each point and claim you made. I even requoted them as anyone can see above. So that is a very dishonest claim.
I have made no personal attacks, I have only addressed what you have posted.
For example this claim:
Atheism is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, so this claim is nonsensical. I explained why carefully, and you ignored the response.
Or your use of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy there again, and again you offered no response, yet you have used this fallacy from your first post, and are still using it over and over for weeks now. Then claime dthere was no rational basis for atheists to be moral, and have pointedly failed to offer any evidence by explaining which principle of logic you are claiming I am violating as an atheists by being moral, and by having a basis for morality?
Well, that’s the problem. If you don’t separate them, then you end up assuming that matter is sentient—like panpsychism and all this stuff. However, if you do separate them…
Hmm… I think this statement may not be entirely true because it is difficult to measure whether AI possesses sentience or not. It’s possible that you might be confusing the idea of measuring sentience with a genuine assessment of it.
However, I haven’t watched the videos you mentioned, so there’s a chance I could be mistaken. I’m not sure about it at the moment.
It is up to you! It is up to how curious and intellectually honest you are.
I have watched them all in few days as soon as learned about them. I was and still am extremely happy that all this is available for free.
Meaning you can’t meet his end of the debate so you keep making up shit in order to rig a win for yourself and get your “gotcha moment”. The moment someone can’t answer questions in a debate is the moment they have lost.
So there’s no point in debating with you. You might as well use that excuse for the rest of us because that’s all you’ve done is evade and deflect shit bag answers all over the board.
It is not possible for ‘Atheism’ to hold delusions. Atheism is the lack of belief in God of Gods. Even if there is a god, it is not delusional to offer disbelief based on the evidence we have. (I suggest you are asserting Atheists can be delusional.) There is no ‘ism’ in Atheism. No dogma, no rituals, no beliefs, no leaders, no delusions.
Compare that to Church dogma, the bible, religious ritual, basic religious belief, etc… Once you make the assertion, ‘atheists can be delusional,’ has been made, you might as well just assert that human beings can be delusional. Aside from disbelief in god or gods, there really is not much else separating us from the average person. Even the average religious person disbelieves in thousands of gods after all.
Atheism does not claim a foundation in science. Many atheists happen to be scientists, skeptics, or highly educated. That says nothing about atheism itself.
Atheism makes no attempt, NONE, to explain anything about human existence. If anything it simply challenges the theological claims for human existence by asking for facts of evidence. When theological claims are not supported, the atheist merely asserts, “I have no reason to believe those claims.” Atheism makes no claims.
Clearly you have no understanding of the word "mythology.’ the study of myths.
Mythology: “this field includes archaeology, comparative mythology, and folklore”
Perhaps you meant to say “myth?”
a widely held but false belief or idea.
If you are asserting some idea held by modern science is false, perhaps you would state the idea and share your opinion. What is it science has said is “TRUE” that you know to be “FALSE?” Please share. (Do you know what a scientific theory is?)
Indeed: Mud babies, eternal salvation, spirits, souls, angels, gods, demons, magic, prophecy, prayer, talking to invisible people, (This list is long.)
How so? Please cite some criticisms of religion that an intelligent person might make, which seem absurd to you.
Historically based religious societies do nothing to establish truth, reality, morality, or anything else. All religion was, in these cases, was a collection of ideas around which social institutions were formed.
If you are just talking about ‘longevity,’ you are incorrect. There are and have been tribal peoples without religious beliefs. These tribes have evolved and been in existence for the same periods of time as the rest of humanity. (Pirahas of Brazil) (According to historian Will Durant, there were a number of pygmy tribes in Africa with no discernible religions. They didn’t have totems, they buried their dead unceremoniously and had no religious rites.) Your ‘Longevity’ argument does not hold water.
Basically Quim… your absolute ignorance concerning Atheism, Archeology, Sociology, and Science, have all been demonstrated. Would you like to try again?
Our 2 older granddaughters know that I’m an atheist and have no problem with it. Eventually, our 2 younger ones will figure it out and not bring up the subject, hopefully.
Arrogance is worse. Arrogance comes from pride. Pride is one of the main reasons people can’t understand that God does exist. There are Christians out their that try to deny true science, but science and the Bible work together very simply. There is nothing pathetic about praying. It it a notion of humbleness. Pride and arrogance might be why you can’t see God. What do you think?
Which deity are you talking about, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate that it exists outside of your imagination, and when you’ve offered credible answers to those, maybe you can explain why an evolved human emotion like pride is a barrier to belief? Though I suspect you’re offering an unevidenced and idiotic platitude, as I have seen this too many times already not to understand you have nothing beyond the unevidenced assertion.
I don’t believe you, but please demonstrate some objective evidence to support your claim.
Ok firstly the word is humility, (fucking humbleness ffs, right up there with intuitiveness and braveness and fucking aggressiveness ffs, annnd breathe ) that word made my teeth itch.
Secondly what objective evidence can you demonstrate that prayer has any discernible effect?
I think your arrogant unevidenced assumptions are not very compelling.
You do know that studies have shown that critically ill patients who know that they’re being “prayed for” actually have worse outcomes than people who don’t.
No one is as arrogant as the asshole Christian screaming bible verses from a street corner pretending he is saving souls. Unless it is the piece of shit knocking on my door Sunday morning with a fucking bible in his hand. You clearly have no understanding of arrogance.
) that word made my teeth itch.