Oh dear. Look what’s turned up in the in tray …
Your presuppositions on this matter do not dictate the reality thereof. And since you manifestly need the requisite schooling on this matter, i’ll provide it.
Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. That is IT. In case you need the point reinforcing, NOT treating unsupported assertions uncritically as fact, is the very antithesis of “faith”.
We all know how you “look” at our output - by ignoring salient facts when they’re presented to you.
This is steaming bullshit of the most feculently stinking order.
First of all, those of us who paid attention in class, reject “faith” itself. Because as you and your ilk routinely demonstrate, “faith” consists of uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions. As I’ve just stated above, atheism is the exact opposite of this. Likewise, we dispensse with “belief” itself, for the same reason. But we’re used to seeing your ilk peddle this lie here.
Indeed, my own output alone destroys this sleazy little well poisoning assertion of yours, let alone that of several other regular contributors here.
Oh, no kidding? It’s takes a special brand of incredulity, to believe the assertions in the requisite goat herder mythology, several of which I’ve demonstrated are farcical and absurd.
Wrong. I’ll elaborate on this as I deconstruct your nonsense in a moment.
When we have reliably repeatable events occurring around us, then we can safely draw inferences therefrom. Which, unlike “faith”, involves taking account of observational data.
You really are an amateur at this, aren’t you?
I happen to be the exception that you should be afraid of. All the more because I have a track record of presenting the contents of relevant papers to non-technical audiences in an accessible manner. I’ve been doing this in various places for 14 years. This includes presenting papers to lay members of my Entomology Society, on such subjects as the laboratory replication of a speciation event in Heliconius butterflies.
And unfortunately for you, Classical Greek was a subject I learned in order to familiarise myself with the nuances of taxonomy. Keep digging that hole.
Not in my case. I have the requisite scholarship under my belt.
Oh this is going to be good …
Oh dear, it’s canard time, folks … a canard I’ve already dealt with. Let’s see you dig that hold deeper, shall we?
BZZZZTTT!!! WELL KNOWN CANARD!!!
[7] The operation of natural processes, and the intellectual labour required to learn about those processes, are two separate entities.
That I have to address this explicitly, and deal with this particular canard, after it had been repeatedly erected by one particular creationist of my acquaintance, after he had been repeatedly schooled upon this, really does make one wonder if some of the people purporting to be in a position to critique valid scientific theories, have ever attended a real science class in their lives, let alone paid attention therein.
Let’s knock this particular nonsense on the head once and for all. Just because scientists perform experiments, for the express purpose of determining how a particular natural process operates, and the details of whatever quantitative laws that process obeys, does NOT in any way, shape or form, support “intelligence” at work within those processes. The only “intelligence” in operation here is that of the scientists trying to learn about the natural process under investigation. In order to demonstrate the fatuousness of the converse view, consider gravity. This is a regularly observed real world phenomenon, and, as real world phenomena go, is about as mindless as one can imagine. The idea that “intelligence” is at work when something falls off a cliff is asinine to put it mildly. Now, in order to deduce the quantitative relationships at work when gravity acts upon objects, scientists can perform various experiments, to determine, for example, the speed of impact with which objects strike the ground when dropped from tall structures of varying heights. That they have to do this in order to deduce these quantitative details, and derive the requisite laws operating within the world of gravitational phenomena, does NOT in any way support the idea that “intelligence” is operating within that natural phenomenon itself. Indeed, applied mathematicians can postulate the existence of all manner of alternative forces, obeying different quantitative laws, and determine what would be observed if ever instances of those forces were observed in the real world, but again, this does NOT support for one moment the idea that those forces are innately “intelligent”. So those who try to erect this nonsense with respect to experiments in evolutionary biology, or abiogenesis, will again invite much ridicule and laughter.
For those who really want ramming home how absurd this canard is, the online satirical magazine The Onion has published this hilarious piece on “intelligent falling”. Anyone who reads this without laughing, and regards the content as a serious exposition of scientific thinking, is in dire need of an education.
It’s also apposite here to deal with the duplicitous assertion that a scientific experiment intended to eludicate the workings of a given physical system, implies that said system was “designed”. This is apologetic bullshit of the most steamingly foetid order. First of all, scientific experiments are performed, frequently because the behaviour of the system in question is not yet known, and as a corollary, can hardly be said to be “designed” for this reason alone. Second, that system isn’t “designed” for another reason - namely, that the outcome of the experiment may be surprising to the experimenter, and yield unexpected (or even counter-intuitive) results. One cannot be said to have “designed” something that delivers an unexpected result. Of course, I’ve dealt with the duplicity of the whole “design” apologetics elsewhere in a separate exposition, but it’s apposite to point out salient ideas here, for those who haven’t read that exposition.
Indeed, I recently encountered a creationist who, farcically, claimed that cosmological models of a hypothetical cyclic universe inplied that said cyclic universe was “designed”, which again is fatuous nonsense for one simple reason. Scientific models are intended to be descriptive, NOT prescriptive. They’re simply intended to describe the workings of an actual or hypothetical physical system, with NO “design” or teleology implied (I’ll cover other relevant bases in other sections of this exposition). We leave prescription to mythologies and their unsupported assertions.
In case you’re wondering, I first penned this at another place way back in 2010, so you’re peddling a canard that has been KNOWN to be a canard forTHIRTEEN YEARS.
Moving on …
Oh dear, I smell the erection of the “you need my magic man to be moral” canard coming up any moment now …
Oh dear. It seems you need educating yet again …
First, there’s the matter that those of us who paid attention in classes devoted to ethics, learned a long time ago that this subject is far more subtle and complex than the fatuous caricature thereof that mythology fanboys embrace, namely “Magic Man says so”. Which of course is recognised by those of us who paid attention in class, as not merely a caricature of genuine ethics, but a dangerous one, as anyone familiar with Susan B. Anthony’s famous and succinct critique thereof is well aware. In addition, a paper I have presented in several places about differences between secular and religious societies also has significant input at this juncture., one that also presented in another thread here, which I cover in some detail in this post.
Those of us who paid attention in the requisite classes, learned some time ago of a simple and powerful test that can be performed, to determine the ethical status of an action, that is independent of any “authority” - namely, what benefit or harm is bestowed upon the recipients of the action in question. Being able to perform this test, courtesy of our ability to place ourselves mentally in the situation of others, doesn’t require a comsic Big Brother, but empathy, a property that is actually to be found possessed by eutherian mammals all the way down to rodents (about which I shall say more shortly).
Likewise, the concepts of reciprocity and fairness are to be found distributed much more widely than the usual suspects imagine. Indeed, there now exists an abundant scientific literature, documenting in exquisite detail the evidence for the evolutionary and biological basis of:
[1] our capacity for ethical thought, and;
[2] the motivation to act thereupon.
Give me time to look up some relevant citations, and I’ll provide them in another post. 
Among the topics discussed in said literature, are:
[3] The evolution of brain development genes expressed in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that has been known to be implicated in ethical decision making for over a century;
[4] Observed instances of ethical behaviour in non-human species, none of which know about our mythologies or invented cartoon magic men.
With respect to [4] above, I was recently introduced to peer reviewed scientific papers, documenting experimental determination of ethical behaviour in rats. Which have been shown in the laboratory, to reject behaviours that would inflict pain and suffering upon a fellow rat, even when a substantial reward for those behaviours is offered. Seems rats have a better ability to reject avarice than a good many human beings I can think of.
Looks like once again, a large body of real world data is destroying your smug, complacent presuppositions.
WRONG.
Apparently you need to learn an elementary fact again, namely that mythological assertions do not constitue fact. Indeed, many of them have been destroyed by real world data. That you are unaware of this specak volumes.
Oh, you mean the way in which they ignore the large body of observational data we present to them as a free education?
We didn’t “close our minds” to your mythology, we learned that it contains demonstrable and manifest nonsense, and as a corollary, cannot be trusted as a source of supposed “knowledge”. That assertion about genetics being purportedly controlled by coloured sticks being a particularly foetid example.
What’s genuinely futile, is pretending that a mythology is superior to genuine sources of fact.
Except of course, that the idea that a successful military general existed in the past, isn’t that remarkable. We have numerous examples right across recorded history to call upon. Plus, there exists archeaological evidence of Alexander’s activity, such as the causeway he built to facilitate the Siege of Tyre in 332 BCE. The stone used for that causeway can still be found today, stretching from the Al-Bass region of the modern city in the east, to the Crusader Cathedral in the west. Part of it runs through the Tyre Al-Bass World Heritage Site, and is visible in Google Maps satellite images.
I suspect other archaeological evidence can be found at other sites of his military activity.
Meanwhile, it transpires that some writings about Alexander do survive.
There’s much you don’t understand, such as facts.
Actually, the first major biographer of Alexander after the fact began writing in the 1st century BCE, 200 years, not 400 years, after the events in question. Plus, once again, he wasn’t stating anything remarkable in that biography. “Military general was successful at military conquest” isn’t a particualrly remarkable assertion. On the other hand, “Magic Man came to earth and then rose from the dead” is really far out there.
This presumes that the character in question actually existed as stated. Indeed, I addressed that very question in this earlier post in another thread.
Looks like you have a lot of homework lined up for the foreseeable future …