When has this gone on long enough? Sid is saying nothing and I have begun reading his posts to help me fall asleep.
Well, @Cognostic, Iâve been considering what action, if any, to take. @Sid is terribly reluctant to answer direct questions with direct answers. @Sid seems to just want to poke the bear, so to speak.
On one hand, every poster here has the option to simply ignore him, thus allowing him to rattle on to empty seats.
On another hand, I think there is definite value in allowing him to remain active with responses offered by other posters. There are many silent visitors to these forums (often, hundreds a day). The counters to his posts provide a great deal of edification for a lot of folks. That he is selling vaporware starts to become obvious via the many, more though out, counters to his pitch.
Iâll cogitate on it a bit more. @Whitefire13 and I can confer. And he can provide, if he chooses, any reasons he may have for justifying his continued presence.
1 Like
Par for the course . Itâs your sandbox and you make the rules so kick me out anytime you like .
As you say there are many many silent visitors and they will be the judge on who and what makes for honest and respectful debate .
Iâll leave you with another goat herder
Science and religion are very much alike. Both are imaginative and creative aspects of the human mind. The appearance of a conflict is a result of ignorance. We come to exist through a divine act. That divine guidance is a theme throughout our life; at our death the brain goes, but that divine guidance and love continues. Each of us is a unique, conscious being, a divine creation. It is the religious view. It is the only view consistent with all the evidence.â
âSir John Eccles, who received the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for establishing the relationship between inhibition of nerve cells and repolarization of a cellâs membrane. He is here cited in his article titled âModern Biology and the Turn to Belief in God.â
AaaannnnndddddddddâŚ.he still doesnât directly answer any direct questions! Me thinks heâs either too afraid or simply unable to do so.
1 Like
LOL - Now that is funny. You donât actually think you have been honest, do you? You have defined nothing, gone nowhere, and repeated the same BS adinfintum. You donât understand critical thinking what an actual dichotomy is, or how logic works. And you want to claim honesty? I what world?
2 Likes
And what pray tell what have you defined ?
Logic will tell you that there either is a God or there is not, if there is a third or fourth option then Iâm all ears .
Logic will also tell you that if something - Love -cannot be a product of a godless creation then it must be a creation of God .
Unless you can provide Proof that a mass, charge , spin lifeless universe has a need to produce Love then its creation must lay elsewhere - God .
Pure logic and donât go stealing Theistic values to try and account for it . You have the burden of proof not me
So which is it and why? What evidence do you have for either position? Every atheist you have interacted with has told you that they do not believe in gods. What god are you talking about and what is your actual evidence.
Demonstrate your claim. You keep repeating the same bullshit though it has been shown to be false.
UNIVERSE? What makes you think a universe created love? Go back and read my previous post. Speaking with you is tiresome.
The person making the positive claim has the burden of proof. The universe created love is a positive claim. You are demonstrably wrong. âLove can not be a godless creation.â is a positive claim. Demonstrate your claims⌠Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. What claim must I defiend?
1 Like
That he would have received based on demonstrable, repeatable evidence.
This however is his imaginative word salad 
.
Not a thing written can be evidenced. His beliefs are his to have. Doesnât make it so.
No evidence for his view.
2 Likes
It seems your only response to the evidence that human emotions evolved as a survival benefit, driven by natural selection, is handwaving, I shanât even feign surprise.
Still waiting for you to offer a single word to explain how you think evolved human emotions are the product of your imaginary deity?
That is exactly hat the evidence indicates, which is why you were so keen to dismiss it with vapid handwaving, obviously.
Indeed, but that doesnât bode well for your crap though clearly, since you have not answered a single direct question out to you, or demonstrated any objective evidence for your imaginary invisible friend, or been able to offer one single word in explanation for your superstitious claims, and when you ask for evidence and it is presented, quelle surprise your response is vapid handwaving.
More than one deity champ would seem like an obvious third option ,so youâve actually invoked logic while using a false dichotomy fallacy, dear oh dear. However the fact remains you have failed to demonstrate anything beyond vapid rhetoric, that any deity is even possible.
Human emotions exist, the material universe exists, species evolution exists, your addition of an unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic violates Occamâs razor.
At least you left the word logic out of that false dichotomy fallacy, and no we donât need contrary evidence to your unevidenced assertion that goddidit, that one is called an argument ad ignorantiam fallacy.
PMLMAO, itâs pure something alright, but what it is definitely not is rational.
The evidence human emotions evolved has been given, all anyone need do is read this thread. However even if we had no idea where or how human emotions emerged, it still doesnât remotely evidence any deity, why would it?
No we donât, this is still an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, but do claim youâre being rational again, as that is absolutely hilarious given how relentlessly youâve peddled known common logical fallacies in tandem.
So he held a subjective unevidenced religious belief, whatâs your point? Are you going to offer endless appeal to authority fallacies now? I suppose it makes a change from all your appeals to ignorance fallacies and false dichotomy fallacies anyway.
No point asking @Sid as he wonât answer, but does anyone understand why the word suggest has triggered him? As in the evidence suggests thatâŚ?
Suggest
verb
- cause one to think that (something) exists or is the case.
Is he using another definition we donât know about?
@Sid, for the third time, how do you define and measure devout?
Are you dodging this question or unable to answer it?
Bullshit. You donât need to believe in any higher powers or magical sky daddy to make e.g. physics and chemistry works. Transistors (and by extension, computer chips and computers) work whether you believe in physics or not. Internal combustion engines work independently of your trust in thermodynamics. Nuclear power plants work whether you believe quantum physics is true or not. Same with chemistry, medicine (applied biology), geosciences, etc. Religion, on the other hand, requires you to believe in it. And even then it doesnât work.
5 Likes
Science is testable, falsifiable, and evidence based, it the very antithesis of faith based unevidenced and unfalsifiable superstition. The last sentence is just hilarious, since you have denied scientific evidence in favour of your unevidenced belief again and again throughout this thread. I can only hope youâre on a windup.
You really are crassly and stupidly incompetent at even elementary discourse, arenât you?
In case this elementary concept flew past you, in your eagerness to post more duplicitous ex recto apologeti fabrications, unlike your sad little goat herder mythology, the book I referenced is a work of non-fiction. The book I referenced documents demonstrable facts about the life histories of tropical fish, demonstrable facts that have been found to be thus by millions of tropical fishkeepers over the past century.
Indeed, one of the points you missed, in your eagerness to try and bullshit your way out of facing the facts in question, the last page I posted includes a photograph illustrating the fish in question exhibiting part of the very behaviour he documented. Or did this elementary concept fly past you as well, Looby Loo?
For that matter, there are hundreds of YouTube videos you can watch, featuring Cichlids breeding, and if you watch any of the videos featuring Central or South American Cichlid species, youâll find that Innes was correct about their behaviour.
As an example, that book also contains within its pages, information about the breeding behaviour of Corydoras catfish, and mentions that during mating, the male and female adopt a mutual posture known as the âT positionâ. Guess what? I observed this very position being adopted by my own mating catfish in my own aquarium back in the early 2000s. I successfully kept and bred three generations of Corydoras panda catfish., and their behaviour matched the description Innes gave in his book on this subject.
Just to reinforce the point, hereâs two photos I took of my fish during one of their breeding sessions - one featuring the âT positionâ, and one featuring one of the fry resulting from the spawning. Yes, thatâs right, I have photographic documentation of my own fish exhibiting the very behaviour Innes described way back in 1936.
For that matter, these fish keep up this frenetic level of activity for up to five hours at a stretch, and I joked about this on a tropic fish forum I frequented at the time, saying that if I tried emulating their sexual energy, I would end up in a jar at the hospital.
For those who need an introduction to the âT positionâ shown above, the male clasps the femaleâs barbels with his pectoral fin, as shown in that photo, and releases sperm. The female ingests the serm through her mouth, passes it back to her rear through here gills, and fertilises one or more eggs, which she then catches in her pelvic fins. Fertilised eggs caught therein are then transported to a location to be laid, usually deep inside suitable plant foliage. Java Moss in my aquarium was a favourite choice for this in the case of my own fish
What part of the word FACT do you not understand, mythology fanboy?
Youâre not even trying here.
Stop being crass, mythology fanboy. What part of âthe information contained in that textbook has been verified to be correct by millions of tropical fishkeepers over the past centuryâ do you not understand? Including verification of my own as one of those fishkeepers?
Do you have a single honest cell anywhere in your body?
Oh look, itâs time for that favourite mythology fanboy pastime, the peddling of alleged âquotesâ by scientists, in a desperate attempt to prop up a fictional mythology and its ludicrous assertions.
Except that wait, Planck never found any evidence for your cartoon magic man. If he had, he would have been awarded a Nobel Prize for doing this. That this never happened should be telling you something important. I see in addition that CyberLN demolished your feeble attempt to play the âquotesâ game, by referencing reliable reportage on the matter. And, speaking of CyberLM:
Indeed, this is one of the salient points mythology fanboys fail to understand. Namely, that the moment they present drivel in a globally accessible public forum, it wonât take long for someone to feed said drivel into the shredder. All too often, mythology fanboys think theyâre peddling some ineffable brand of âwisdomâ with their ex recto apologetics, complacently thinking that [1] no one else has seen the drivel in question, and [2] that theyâre going to "stick it to the stupid atheists⢠" with said drivel. Only for a dozen demolitions to form a queue to give said drivel a merciless kicking.
Creationists in particular think theyâre so fucking big and so fucking clever with the turgid excrement they post, only for the feculent dreck they serve up to be demonstrated time and again to be a mixture of ignorance and brazen lies. Though given the frankly cretinous level of the fantasies they entertain, they have to lie in order to prop up said fantasies, which merely underscores how much of an ideological cancer their infantile attachment to a goat herder mythology really is.
An assertion that betrays your simplistic thinking once more. See my discourse on braneworld cosmology, and the implications it has for said simplistic thinking.
Except that this tiresome and repeatedly parroted assertion of yours has been busted repeatedly. Do you ever learn from the free education youâre receiving here?
Bullshit. Itâs not a matter of âneedâ, itâs a matter of consequence of relevant testable natural processes. Once again, why did fish develop advanced pair bonding and parental care of offspring, a behaviour theyâve possessed for several million years, without the need for a cartoon magic man?
Do learn the baby steps here.
Bullshit. Which is all you ever have to offer here.
No, pure bullshit from you. You wouldnât recognise genuine logic if it backed an M1 Abrams main battle tank into your ribcage.
We donât have to, in case you failed to learn this, not least because âtheistic valuesâ have nothing worth stealing. You continue to demonstrate this every time you post.
No, YOU have the burden of proof with respect to the existence of your cartoon magic man. Concocting fake âsyllogismsâ in an attempt to create magic spells to conjure your cartoon magic man into existence doesnât work.
This is complete crap.
Science is in the business of testing assertions to destruction, in order to find out which ones are likely to be genuine descriptions of observational reality. Religion is in the business of pretending that made up shit assertions constitute âaxiomsâ about the world, no matter how much observational reality pisses on this hubris from a great height.
Once again, all youâre demonstrating with your excremental garbage, is that your modus operandi can be summed up as âif reality and my mythology differ, reality ios wrong and my mythology is rightâ. Those coloured sticks make a mockery of your hubristic pretensions.
1 Like
Oh, and to reinforce the point, hereâs some video footage of various Central and South American Cichlids breeding. Letâs start with a pair of Jack Dempseys:
Next up, some Firemouth Cichlids:
How about some Green Terrors?
And now, for some Jaguar Cichlids âŚ
And, time for some Rainbow Cichlids (Herotilapia multispinosa) âŚ
All of them exhibiting the behaviours Innes described in 1936.
Meanwhile, the âlip lockingâ behaviour Innes described - hereâs a nice illustration thereof. First, two male Green Terrors engaging in a territorial dispute. Second, male and female Convict Cichlids preparing to mate âŚ
No doubt our resident mythology fanboy will avoid even acknowledging the existence of this material, because he doesnât want his crass remarks about âappeal to authorityâ to be shown up for what they are âŚ
The objective evidence that the mind is an emergent property of the physical brain is overwhelming. Whereas there isnât any objective evidence it magically can exist without a physical brain.
Thatâs a lie. âEVOLUTION OF HUMAN EMOTIONâ You are simply dismissing objective evidence with handwaving, so the bs is all yours. You have also failed to offer any evidence or explanation of how love requires inexplicable magic from an unevidenced deity, so again your bs is manifest.
He asked for evidence, not an unevidenced subjective claim, propped up with an irrational argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Well I can see why youâre keen to ringfence your imaginary deity from that objective standard, but whatâs silly is you coming here to claim your sky fairy exists then pretending existence is not defined as having objective reality. You came to us remember, not the other way around.
Which one? Humans have created literally thousands, the Christian religion alone has over 45k different sects and denominations. Are we supposed to guess which imaginary deity you favour the try and guess how you define? That has to be hands down one of the stupidest assertions Iâve ever seen a religious apologist make, and thatâs some stiff competition.
Are you suggesting I simply believe your claim when you can neither define nor evidence it? I think your bombast here must be trolling, at least I hope it is, as again this is one the stupidest lines of religious apologetics I have ever encountered, and that is some feat.
A demonstrably lie, since despite youâre being too dishonest to define or evidence your belief, you have been discussing it for pages. many tedious cryptically dishonest and irrational pages as well.
Love is simply an emergent property from the brain Sid, you may also choose other concepts⌠why not, Doubt? Confusion? Anger?
So your very best evidence for the notion that there is some magical universal wizard is simply a word we call a human emotion.
And even then, that still does not prove a god exists.
At best you can say, âscience cannot explain this particular emotionâ (which I donât believe is true)⌠that does not therefore infer or imply that a celestial being brought it into existence.
1 Like
I just got to say⌠We have brains, We donât have fundamental anything. Demonstrate a consciousness that is independent of something physical like a brain or minimally some sort of neuronetwork. (You are really lousy at this. I could make this argument 100 times better than what Sid is attempting to do.
Or explain why in every single case consciousness doesnât appear until the physical brain is fully formed and starts functioning after birth, and then disappears immediately never to be seen again when the physical brain dies.
Coincidence Iâm sure, and there goes Occam, spinning in his grave. Metaphorically of course, he canât really spin or do anything since his brain died a long long time ago.
Why does he need to prove anything to you or anybody else ( if he were still alive ) ?
Nothing written can evidenced to Prove that Love is the product of a blind pitiless meaningless purposeless lifeless universe . You believe that , it doesnât make it so .