Uh, not sure if you know, but I have been known to make shit up on occasion…
I just had a quick look using an inspection mirror, whilst I may need counselling, I saw no teapot?
Oh wait, I read that aloud initially and may have confused a part of my anatomy with a planetary body, well now I do feel foolish, and I may schedule an appointment with a proctologists. 
2 Likes
Well Cog could probably make a recommendation there…
As it happens, I have just acquired a 55 gallon jug of ummm. Power Slide. It’s sure to solve your problem … for a price.
Uh, hang on Cheetah… until full payment is remitted (in full), there will be no anal slip and slide fun for you…
.
.
Edit (Delivery contingent upon full payment remittance, subsequent to provision of statement stipulating “full payment due upon receipt”…please pay in full.
Payment?!? 
We have to PAY for something we blatantly STOLE from you? I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t seem right. We hijacked that barrel fair and square.
We don’t regard science as an “authority” in the same sense mythology fanboys regard their mythologies. We simply realise that science has proven time and again to be a reliable means of testing postulates. Your failed attempt to erect a fake “symmetry” between mythology fanboyism and science is precisely that - failed.
Er, no. In case you never learned this elementary lesson, whenever an entity has been postulated to exist, scientists have either [1] found evidence for said entity, or [2] devised cogent reasons why said entity does not exist. They have done so reliably over the past 350 years.
Now, at this point, we come to the crux of the matter. Namely, that if your cartoon magic man is in any manner observable, then it becomes the remit of science. Only if your cartoon magic man is not observable, does it escape scientific inquiry.
Which poses quite a dilemma for mythology fanboys.
Oh really?
Wrong, on several counts.
Count #1: those of us who treat the requisite questions rigorously, do not assert that a god type entity in the most general sense does not exist. Instead, we regard the question as unanswered. Not least because if a proper, rigorous answer had been found in the past, this would now be part of our mainstream body of knowledge, and no one would be arguing about it.
On the other hand, we do dismiss cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies, for multiple cogent reasons. Here’s eight such reasons that apply:
[1] If your magic entity is asserted to possess contradictory or absurd properties, it can be dismissed on those grounds alone. Which means that your favourite magic entity, along with several others, are tossed into the bin before I move on.
[2] Mythology fanboys of various species, have had over 5,000 years to provide genuine evidence for their various asserted fantastic magic entities, and in all that time, have provided nothing better than “my mythology says so”.
[3] Mythology fanboys are incapable of agreeing among themselves on a global scale, which of the numerous mythologies humans have invented is purportedly the “right” mythology, and, adherents of a particular mythology are incapable of agreeing among themselves what said mythology is purportedly telling us. Apparently your cartoon magic man, if it actually exists, is happy with this hilarious and absurd morass of anti-consilience on the part of its worshippers.
[4] Mythologies contain assertions about the natural world, that have been utterly destroyed by scientific discoveries, and which no genuinely existing god type entity would allow itself to be associated with. For example, one particular pre-scientific mythology contains within its pages, the farcical assertion that genetics is purportedly controlled by coloured sticks.
This assertion was found to be a risible lie by a 19th century monk, whose landmark scientific research not only taught us how genetics actually operates, but laid the foundations of modern genetics as a properly constituted scientific discipline.
Apparently the cartoon magic ma in question, if it ever existed, was not only too stupid to present basic biological facts correctly, but was also insufficiently “omniscient” to foresee the emergence of said 19th century monk and his diligent scientific experiments.
Given that the mythology in question asserts that the cartoon magic man in question has “perfect foreknowledge” of the future, failing to take note of the work of a 19th century monk falsifying this assertion is an epic blunder.
[5] Several million peer reviewed scientific papers document in exquisite detail, the evidence that testable natural processes are sufficient to explain the vast body of observational data obtained over the past 350 years, and as a corollary, have rendered cartoon magic men from goat herder mythologies superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
[6] Indeed, expanding upon [5] above, scientists have alighted upon vast classes of entities and interactions, that the authors of pre-scientifc mythologies were incapable of even fantasising about, despite purportedly having the alleged “creator” of the universe present to tell them about said classes of entities and interactions. Furthermore,said scientists have placed said classes of entities and interactions into usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of knowledge, of a sort that the authors of mythologies would have regarded as magic.
[7] If the authors of any of the mythologies in question had indeed alighted upon the keys to the cosmos, and as a corollary, that the work of Nobel level scientists was supposedly all “wrong”, why does that supposedly “wrong” work of said Nobel level scientists work, and mythological assertions don’t?
[8] If any of the mythologies humans have invented, were something other than fanciful fiction treated farcically as fact, and there was some substance lurking within the obscurantist prose, why do mythology fanboys have to lie repeatedly in order to propagandise for their favourite mythologies? Mythology fanboys gatecrash this site repeatedly, to post well-known and previously destroyed lies about atheism, atheists and various scientific topics, and in the latter case, demonstrate that they frequently lack sufficient functioning neurons to understand the scientific topics they claim to be able to dismiss.
Count #2: when each of the cogent reasons presented above are applicable, we don’t need “infinite knowledge”, we just need to be able to distinguish reliably between fact and made up shit.
Count #3: None of the people who paid attention in class, assert that the universe and its contents were bereft of any generating process. What we do recognise, courtesy of the the work of thousands of diligent scientists, is summarised in [5] above - namely, that the only candidate for a “creator” than enjoys evidential support, is testable natural processes.
Once again, do learn the elementary concepts at work here.
This is a bare faced lie. See my above exposition.
Also, since you are the one implying above, that there exists some other means of obtaining knowledge about your “creator” than science, then you have your work cut out for you. You need to establish the following steps:
[1] That your althernative methodology reliably sorts assertions into true and false categories;
[2] that your alternative methodology is applicable to the question of the existence of a “creator”;
[3] That it yields the requisite affirmative answer in a reliable manner.
Without the above, all you have is snide carping.
Once again, you’re lying. See above.
Also, if you want to assert that there exists a better method than the scientific method, for answering the question of whether or not a “creator” exists (other than testable natural processes, of course), then I’ve outlined the steps you need to complete. Until you do so, all you have is hot air and snide carping.
Moving on …
Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than supicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. That is its sole remit. It doesn’t pretend to have answers to questions, and presents no assertions.
Oh by the way, scientists have devised a perfeectly adequate explanation for love. One backed by evidence.
Meanwhile, you are seriously advised not to peddle false assertions about atheism and atheists, which merely render your entire discoursive corpus null and void. If you can’t be bothered learning the facts about this matter, then you’re in no position to lecture us on any topic.
1 Like
Look in the mirror. Look up at the skies.
Whoooa! That did it. Those hamster wheels must have really been spinning to come up with this one. What a brilliant argument. “Look at the sky. Look in a mirror.” Wow! How convincing. I have a strong suspicion that your god is a complete idiot if those are the sorts of replies he gives to you to give to us.
1 Like
All aboard the HMSS sinkingship
Nothing there evidences a deity or anything supernatural, the claim has no explanatory powers whatsoever. Unlike biology and physics, which amply and accurately explain both, but even if we had no explanation they wouldn’t represent evidence for any deity or anything supernatural, you are simply making vapid assumptions. You don’t even try to offer any evidence for your claim?
1 Like
No it doesn’t .
The constant harping is for OBJECTIVE proof as only science can provide . Now amazingly you have science being the authority on the SUBJECTIVE .
Total bollocks .
Yes it does, I even gave you a citation, but by all means contact the science department of that Texas university, and offer your erudition on their scientific research, do let us know how you get on. In the meantime I’m afraid your petulant dismissal, carries no weight , since a) you have no credible scientific credentials at all, and b) offered only a bare unevidenced claim, that itself has no explanatory powers at all, and you have failed to offer any explanation or evidence for your claim when asked.
I ask again how does the existence of evolved human emotions like love evidence any deity? You don’t seem to be able to explain your claim, let alone evidence it? The inference is clear to any rational reader.
2 Likes
What do you mean? Look in the mirror. Look at the sky. How is that not completely convcincing. Obviously your heart is hardened and your eyes blind to the glory of God. Your blindness is the consequence of your heathen ways. You are choosing to burn in hell and the day of judgment is coming. The argument is completely logical. If God did not create air, you would not be able to breathe. You would not exist. You would not be able to look in a mirror at the sinful nature of your sinful self. Repent. Accept Jesus into your heart. With Jesus in your heart, you can see the magic in the air and a saved soul looking back at you from the mirror instead of the doomed shell of a person you have become. Repent now. Beg Jesus for forgiveness before it is too late. Your time is coming, and you must get right with God or suffer for all eternity. We all love you, but we can not protect you from your own stupid choices. My prayers and good wishes go with you and I hope you will one day see the light. Freedom from you ignorant ways is just a bended knee away. Jesus loves you.
1 Like
It is convincing because you were made in his image and likeness. If you had an honest and inquiring mind you would take some time and think about yourself as a being with a mind, with morals, with a heart, you would take time to look at the biology, the systems in the micro and the macro levels, the extreme level of complexity, the amount of information in your DNA. It’s rather dishonest to use yourself as the evidence for evolution but then go on and deny that same type of evidence for your Creator.
Just because it can, with limitations, explain it doesn’t mean it can create it. But most will not take that response oddly enough while using machines not even close in complexity to themselves.
Oh I am sorry, Captain Cat and I fell off the chair in a terrible tangle after reading that fantastical unevidenced claim…wait don’t tell me the evidence is…the bible!!!
CC is now lashing his tail and tearing shreds out of the 1997 Bible Companion I keep by the computer.
Me, I am reading the creatard buzzwords, Micro and Macro, Complexity and information in one’s DNA.
Risible, debunked nonsense from third rate websites and awful you tube wannabees. Not even the rather nice Merlot I bought last week is going to wash out the taste of deliberate lies told to sub average intellects, the gullible and defenceless children. Gah.
Over to you Callissea, this boy needs a spankin’.
3 Likes
Well my arteries maybe.
The optician told me that the deterioration was normal for someone my age?
Oh oh oh, that’s one of them circular thingy’s…
Well I am not, which kinda puts a dent in that argument?
What is it with superstition and the cardiovascular system?
Eh, wait until you’re asked please.
Not doing so well thus far I must say.
It’s funny you should say that, I had an eerie feeling that I was experiencing absolutely nothing unusual at all.
Ah, sadly the old knees are not what they were.
He can wait until he’s asked as well.
3 Likes
But you haven’t presented any evidence. I’m just seeing you preach and call that evidence.
Badabing, a circular reasoning fallacy, you have assumed your conclusion in your premise yet again, your irrationality is relentless, and this is significant, I urge you to learn why. Also it is an objective fact that humans, like all living things, evolved slowly over time, though it’s edifying you are saying your deity shares over 97% of it’s DNA with chimpanzees.
I think this claim may have used up every bit of irony in existence, the lack of self-awareness is astonishing, even for a creationist.
Micro and macro evolution simply describe changes on different timescales in evolution. We evolved, as did all living things, the evidence is overwhelming: Here is a link for you: LINK educate yourself. FYI that site also has an extensive list of creationist propaganda claims and debunks them carefully.
According to your superstition a deity created everything, including the simplest things like grains of sand, so why would complexity represent evidence for design?
On the contrary, this position reflects overwhelming objective scientific evidence. All the evidence since Darwin published his seminal work on the origin of species supports the fact of species evolution, even entirely new branches of science like genetics. That’s all the scientific evidence from almost 164 years of global scientific scrutiny. not just science either, the largest and wealthiest church on the planet, the RCC has long ago accepted the fact of species evolution, aware that opposing it is pointless.
You have failed to offer any evidence, let alone “the same”, just vapid platitudes devoid of any explanatory powers, and irrational claims using known common logical fallacies, like the circular reasoning fallacy I quoted above.
That doesn’t address the fact that your vapid claims about mirrors and sky, explained nothing, and evidenced nothing.
Can I have a version of that gibberish that makes any sense please? Again complexity does not evidence design, we know things are designed because we can cite objective evidence they are, and designed things all share one distinct thing in common, they do not occur naturally.
1 Like