Yea, I’m guilty. I wasn’t taking you seriously. I thought it was a good distinction to make. You know, From an Atheist perspective.
2 Likes
Well then, where is White? She’s been slacking on her rolling pin maintenance duties.
Meanwhile, the idea that we need a cartoon magic man in order to function as ethical beings is beng dealt numerous hammer blows by scientfiic research …
Needless to say, I pored over that collection of papers with special relish …
Oh, crap. Something I posted being used a learning opportunity? Where did I go wrong? Although, as long as it helps promote The Atheist World View, I suppose I can take one for the team this time.
1 Like
But, what about The Atheist Belief System ?
And, by the way, have you checked your “substrate” lately?? Above all, keep in mind that the neglect of doors could portend something irreversibly ambiguous…
.
.
Edit to go call my friend Gary Heisenberg
She is on sabbatical. You’re stuck with just me for a while.
Cyber, you should know your Mod skills are first class. However, nobody would ever expect you to make requisite maintenance adjustments to Cog’s rolling pin. The mere thought of it makes me shudder. 
1 Like
Who in the hell is Sabbatical? What do you mean, ‘She’s on Sabbatical?’ Why haven’t I heard of him before? Why do you know this information and I don’t? Did you see her on Sabbitical or are you just repeating a rumor? What in the hell is going on around here?
You can ask me this in the Lounge and I may answer it. But this room is for debate. 
Note this is a subjective unevidenced claim, not objective evidence for a deity, and no everyone can’t see it, or see any creation, no atheists do for example.
Again this is not objective evidence, this is an unevidenced subjective belief, and again it is demonstrably untrue, since a) you would need to know what a deity looked like in order for the claim to even make sense, and b) all the objective evidence demonstrates irrefutably that like all living things, humans evolved, in our current form we have existed for only 2 to 3 hundred thousand years, a mere blink in evolutionary terms, or compared to the age of the universe, so again your claim is neither objective evidence nor is it true.
No it doesn’t, and again this is not objective evidence, it is a subjective opinion, and since the rate of atheism is far higher among scientists this also suggests again that your claim is untrue.
So three false claims, based on your own subjective beliefs.
Hmm, that sounds more like immutable than true, and what we perceive as true absolutely changes, what guarantees the best chance of something being true is the amount of objective evidence that supports it. Humans have imagined thousands of deities to be real, and these are always changing, the ones in vogue now even are evolving, as religions always do, Christianity alone for example has over 45k sects and denominations globally, over 200 in the US alone. Truth is simply that which is in accordance with fact or reality.
Objective means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts, and the implication is obvious, the less objective a belief the less reliably true it is, the more objective the evidence, then the more compelling it is, and the more objective evidence we have the more reliable the belief is. An accepted scientific theory for example is the pinnacle of scientific endeavour, because of the weight of objective evidence required to achieve this.
This means the claims are anecdotal, and therefore entirely subjective. Also a miracle by definition is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, in a claim for a miracle divine agency is assigned based not on any objective evidence, but on not having a natural or scientific explanation.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. “This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.” In other words you would need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for divine intervention, not simply claim it could not be explained using natural or scientific laws, though I’d add that I am extremely dubious about that as well.
Just to get the thread back on track a little, perhaps @WhoAreYou can explain his continuing belief in light of these responses. Since we have seen no objective evidence or rational argument demonstrated to support those beliefs. Given the extraordinary nature of the claims for anything supernatural, and the fact that all that is offered is again subjective anecdote and irrational arguments, this then is the strongest of claims, supported by the weakest of arguments.
I would add that I have always found this to be all that religious apologetics has, and is why I remain an incredulous atheist.
1 Like
How circular can you get? You don’t get to assert ‘creation’ without first demonstrating a creator. How do you know it’s a creation? Because there is a creator. How do you know there is a creator. Everyone can see it. Everyone can see what? The creation of the creator.
Total and complete bullshit and it gets you nowhere near a God. You did not rule out natural causes as the possible origin of the universe.; You just called it ‘A creator.’ By altering the language a bit, ‘A naturalistic creative process,’ your criteria is still met and no god is necessary. In the end, you have said absolutely nothing by asserting ‘creator.’ You still need to demonstrate your assertion.
4 Likes
Actually in all truth all people do, including atheists but if you say you don’t it’s because you suppress it and instead give your glory to nature and man, which is exactly what atheists do.
Any honest scientist in the field of population genetics will tell you were are not evolving but devolving, man is degenerating. our fitness is declining 1-3% every generation.
This tired old apologist’s canard, is yet another subjective and unevidenced claim, you have failed to demonstrate either objective evidence or rational argument for any creator.
I need supress nothing, as you have offered nothing but an unevidenced subjective belief, if anyone is supressing the truth here it is surely you, as in order to preserve your superstitious beliefs you must deny objective scientific facts, like species evolution, and the age of the earth and universe.
I have no idea what “give your glory” means? However I don’t glorify human beings at all, that is what your archaic superstition does, by denying the fact we are animals, and just one species of evolved great ape. Nor do I glorify nature, I simply believe only what can be supported by sufficient objective evidence, and while you may be content to indulge unevidenced superstition, I am not.
This is not what you claimed of course, you are shamelessly moving the goal posts here from your risible and unevidenced claim that “there is scientific evidence for a deity”, and as I said, since atheism among scientists is substantially higher than among non-scientists, your claim is also demonstrably false. Nice No True Scotsman fallacy though, your polemic is again exposed as irrational. The integrity of scientific work is based on the rigour of the method and peer review, not on whether they share your chosen superstition.
You seem to have rolled past this challenge to your unevidenced claim that we are “created in the image of a deity”?
And that one? FYI the field of genetics adds overwhelming evidence to the theory of evolution. It even supports Darwin’s taxonomical grouping of humans as great apes, or maybe you think it’s pure coincidence we share a vastly higher amount of our DNA with other great apes, than we do with all other living things?
How dare you decide what I do/not think/believe/observe! You do not know me. You do not live inside my head. I think by saying this you demonstrate a great deal of egotism. Shame on you!
1 Like
Odd, I thought atheists chalked it all up to chemistry and the brain. Shame on me or the chemistry in my brain and my biology? Can’t have it both ways.
I don’t/won’t worship any one or anything, I believe I’m the one responsible for myself and my own future.
1 Like
Straw man…I never, ever said or intimated that, sans medical/biological defects, anyone is not responsible for what they think/say/do based on ownership of brain chemistry!
You have exactly zero knowledge that I “repress” anything. How can you assume this without direct evidence? Do you say it because it fits a narrative you want to be true?
2 Likes
@WhoAreYou, by using this quote of mine as an example for your apparent assumption that I think people are not responsible for themselves, you are simply incorrect.
They’re not mutually exclusive, and these rather desperate straw men fallacies are not fooling anyone. Chemistry, natural phenomena and human consciousness exist as objective fact, you’re adding inexplicable magic, from an unevidenced deity, Occam’s razor applies.
1 Like