You lost from first base the moment you lied about my posting. That you have to lie in order to prop up your attachment to your goat herder mythology and its merely asserted cartoon magic man, merely demonstrates that both are not merely worthless, but an ideological cancer.
I suggest you stick to crayons, they’re closer to your level.
An absolute nonsensical utterance.
Now, now, Cog. Let’s not be too hasty in our judgements. Sid may be on to something here…
@Sid Okay, Sid, I’m gonna go out on a limb here in an effort to help you a bit. Since you are obviously not making yourself understood, I will try to explain your stance to them in a way they might comprehend. Sound fair? (Oh, and please feel free to correct me if I get it wrong.) So, listen up all you heathen doubters…
If I’m understanding Sid correctly, I believe what he is TRYING to say is that his god is responsible for all the scientific evidence scientists are finding that allows the scientists to form all the hypothesis, postulates, theories, and laws we currently know. In other words, were it not for his god, there would be nothing for scientists to find. (Aside from the fact there would be no scientists in the first place. And we wouldn’t even be here to debate all this stuff.) So, sure, we have all these scientific laws and such based on observations and studies and testing done by various curious-minded folks over the centuries. Sid ain’t disputing that. What Sid is TRYING TO say is all your “genius” scientists cannot explain the origin of all the stuff they observed, studied, and tested that allowed them to develop those laws/theories. And, obviously, it was Sid’s god that put all that stuff there. As usual, why do you all have to make things so damn complicated?
(Edit for playing Devil’s Advisor.)
You mean like god putting all those fossils in the ground to make us think the earth is older than the 6000 years we’ve really been here?
That explains everything.
Oh dear…
Fuck me, trolltacular?
@Sid why is love sufficient for you to believe a deity exists?
We are still waiting, though not anticipating, an answer, in between your asinine bs about science.
Hahahahahahhahahahah, uh oh, oh oh, irony overload… 
Do the neuroscientists tell you how the brain produces consciousness?
Do they tell you how lifeless inanimate matter produced consciousness ?
Do they tell you why chemicals produce evil and greed ?
Do they tell you WHY a blind indifferent universe with no purpose or meaning would produce life that has a conscience that gives us a sense of guilt ?
But you’re not a neuroscientist and that is another shit argument without evidence backing the god claim.
Wow, what a group of bullshit questions. Really? Do you actually think you are on to something here? First, do you have any idea at all what neuroscience is? Only one of the questions you mentioned has anything at all to do with neuroscience.
You are assuming everybody has a conscience and sense of guilt. I can assure you, however, I know, and have known, people who have neither.
Guilt??? What’s that? Is that the stuff you sprinkle on Christmas ornaments to make them sparkle?
Ummm, not really sure. Hell, I thought it was just some sort of club or group or something like that.
So I am “leaping to a conclusion” when I say “a person can walk in a dark room”? Uhh hmm
I guess I should qualify that with “it is possible for an able bodied person, who isn’t afraid of the dark, to walk through a pitch dark room, which isn’t flooded and doesn’t have any cats obstructing their path.”
I find it kind of cute how very threatened some of you appear to be by giving me any leeway in terms of forming definitive statements. It’s almost as if you lose a piece of your “non-position” even when I make completely innocuous statements about basic, common sense positions such as “extreme heat causes pain when touched” or “it is possible to walk through darkness”.
Calm down folks. I’m not going to “catch you off guard” or make you “drop the soap” with these little statements. I get the feeling, however, that you see where I’m going with this logic and you don’t like the conclusions. Skepticism is the last stronghold of the unbeliever. And the above litany of absurd counter arguments to my very basic scenarios is quite “telling” in that regard.
But, as you were skeptics … I am going to be playing the observer for a while; trying to lurk more and post less.
Oh! That’s it. A group of different colored cloth squares all sewn together. A guit!
I though love on its own was sufficient for you to believe in a deity? One wonders why you’re still reeling off argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, to create god of the gaps polemics, and not explaining how love evidences any deity?
Well, to be fair I stopped wondering when it became clear you couldn’t explain the claim at all, but still this is pretty funny.
FYI “god did it using inexplicable magic” doesn’t explain anything, since magic is an appeal to mystery and so has no explanatory powers whatsoever. Whereas we know natural phenomena are exist as an objective fact, and are therefor possible, we have no such evidence for deities or magic.
“The evolution of shame and guilt”
“Here we present a computer model featured with reciprocal altruism and gregarious lifestyle for studying this question. We tested ten different strategies in our model and the pairwise contests show that shame-driven-hiding strategy can dominate the other strategies such as tit-for-tat and Pavlov in more than half of parameter combinations. The mathematical analysis of our model demonstrates that shame-driven-hiding strategy is an evolutionary stable strategy within a group as long as hiding can let an individual evade the retaliations to his wrongdoings. However, the problem of hiding is that it reduces an individual’s social circle, i.e. living in a smaller group. Our analysis also shows that guilt-driven-amending strategy can outperform shame-driven-denying strategy at both individual and group levels if the cooperative behavior is sustainable within a group (b/(b-c) < T/n). Thus, we propose that shame is more adaptive at the individual level while guilt is more advantageous in the context of intergroup competition.”
I suggest you read it all, but am pretty sure you won’t bother, or even try and acknowledge an answer that doesn’t involve an appeal to mystery and magic, as you are too emotionally invested in that belief now to ever reason rationally and with an open mind.
Several, I listed a few for you.
I am not threatened by weak poorly reasoned claims and arguments, I just don’t find them very compelling, obviously. This is not about who is making the claims and arguments, it is about how well they are reasoned.
This simply shows you don’t understand how to critically examine claims and beliefs, and as Cog said, you keep leaping to unsafe assumptions. Anyone can learn to think sceptically or critically if they want to, but if someone values a belief, more than they value believing only what is true, then why would they? Emotional investment in beliefs means that critical thinking is anathema to them.
That’s a sweeping generalisation, which ignores for example people who have a very high pain threshold or in very rare cases no pain threshold. This is also not what was originally claimed and disputed as well, you claimed to have personally experience pain, and asked if this was an objective claim, and I pointed out it was a subjective anecdote, since the claim is not evidenced, and the experience of pain itself is subjective of course.
Why would I want to lower my bar for belief to a point where I would be more likely to believe untrue claims?
The challenges were valid, otherwise you’d have something credible to challenge them with other than this weak poisoning of the well fallacy. Your scenarios weren’t just basic, the conclusions you drew were facile, you don’t take enough care before arriving at conclusions, now you can bitch about it when others point this out, or you can try and take more care to construct a better rationale, it’s up to you, but in a debate the first is pointless, as your ideas will get no traction with anyone who understands how poorly reasoned they are.
Post more, but assume less, would be my advice. value critical thinking and scepticism, and debate for what we can learn. The vapidity of superstition offers only superficial succour.