Hahahahaha oh god hahahahaha … you asking us to step into woo woo land with you?
Considering that this god is obsessed with genitalia, that may be a valid conclusion.
Quidditch. Giant spiders? Two-headed dog?
Haha, You wish!
I noticed people reply half-heartedly and don’t address Full points in my Posts so I am going to raise a Thread just For one of You, and I’ll battle that Atheist there.
i give you the option of laying the Rules of Engagement. (Which you will refuse as is your practice)
Should you reverse the choice of the Rules of Engagement to me as you usually do, I thus set and Choose, All the Rules of Natural Truth, the Evidence Act, Natural Law, The Objective Ordinary Reasonable Man and Prohibition of All Fallacies of any kind, And Directly Answering Reasonable Questions put forward to you in a Positive way that Resolves the Question eg what is your name? Answer= my name is … (which you hate doing).
No after-thoughts and You Must stay online to proceed with the argument expenditiously.
Put forth your own Rules of Engagement that I may meet you therein. (I know you will still argue this)
This should be an intelligent discussion, eh @Sheldon ?
I’d personally layout a condition that One cannot Randomly capitalize Unless One is using a Proper noun … hahahahah
Hahahahaha. The only way a theist May “win” hahahahah …need false reasoning and assumptions!
That’s exactly the point, the bible does the same, yet you claim one book validates the fantasies in it, and the other does not.
You can delude yourself if you wish with biblical creation myths, but I will continue to accept only what is properly evidenced, and it is a scientific fact that humans evolved. Your baseless attacks on evolution are your problem, but if you think you can tell me what to think then you’re sadly mistaken.
If the earth is just a few thousand years old, then just how exactly can we see the light from stars that are billions of light years away? Did your deity create the light en route to us ffs?
More of your hand waving rhetoric, I shan’t even feign surprise you ignored the context because you know I did correctly cite your use of it. Theists and religious apologists use this fallacy all the time, to try and reverse the burden of proof. As yu have done again in that post, and pointed out by me below.
That’s another argumentum ad ingorantiam fallacy, because I don’t know how life originated anymore than you do, the difference is that unlike you I don’t use appeal to ignorance fallacies to try to insert creation myths from bronze age superstitions into things I can’t explain.
Again you are deliberately missing the point, that your claim an infallible deity created everything, when it is so obviously flawed is absurd. And of course species evolution is an objective scientific fact, no matter how many creationists won’t accept it.
We can tell no such thing, there isn’t a shred of objective evidence for the claim, as your posts have amply illustrated. Unlike species evolution of course, which is an objective scientific fact, no matter how many times you deny it.
So what? Just because you’re prepared to blindly and unquestioningly accept superstitious fantasies doesn’t mean I have to.
How does that remotely address my point? You disbelieve in every deity humans have ever created because there is no objective evidence for them, but make a biased exception for the one you choose to believe is real, but there is no more evidence for yours than all the rest, and blindly quoting the bible at me won’t change that fact. As I already explained, no book can validate its own claims, or else Harry Potter would validate wizards ad wizardry.
And there is no more objective evidence for that claim, than there is for Zeus, Apollo or Vishnu. You can’t simply assert something into existence.
Lol Sheldon …you having OJ and vodka ???
He’s wondering …”what the fuck do I have to do with this???”
Edited to add - incredible diversity within this species - EVOLUTION
The rules of rational discourse don’t need clarifying by you on here, go and educate yourself, we’re under no obligation to teach you such basic rules of discourse.
The idea you can dictate your made up bullshit rules of discourse in a public forum is pretty hilarious though, besides you said you were leaving, so why should I wish to engage someone in any discourse, that is that dishonest?
Tell you what I will give you another chance to show some shred of integrity.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? If you can’t demonstrate any, then have the integrity to say so, and then offer what you consider to be your most compelling reason for believing in any extant deity.
Otherwise you simply cannot be taken seriously if all you do is make vapid dishonest attacks on atheism and atheists.
Every ideology professes an opinion or bias, and atheism is not exempt.
Atheism is not an ideology on the fence, rather it questions the evidence for the existence of a God or Gods. When theists present evidence of God as creator, the atheist then says no, there is no creator, we just evolved randomly to become what we are.
By so doing, you are interpreting evolution and projecting your anti-theistic bias on the scientific report, no less guilty than the theist in that regard.
Evolution only explains the process, it doesn’t necessarily tell us the why, nor does the science of evolution in itself uphold or debunk the God as creator claim specifically.
The non creationist theist says God was behind evolution, and the atheist says there was no God.
These are all just opinions, and has nothing to do with science. There are so many atheists who tout evolution, but are damn ignorant of the evolution they yap about all day long. They think the atheists are the heroes of science and science is atheistic dogma.
We are discussing your ideology here, and I am tired of correcting atheists on this one misunderstanding all the time, your atheistic ideology or interpretation of science does not equate to science, this goes for the theists as well. So when explaining these things, let us discuss our ideologies specifically.
You actually did imply the universe wasn’t created.
We humans are really not rational… We all filter the world through personal bias, prejudices & worldview. Humans are capable of objective logical reasoning, that’s why we can spot deficiencies in others but when push comes to shove, we mostly make decisions based on emotions and bias rather than objective reasoning regardless of education or religious affiliation.
From my own experience and mine alone(so I could be wrong), whenever I get into a conversation where someone starts using words like “that’s a so & so fallacy” alot, I just believe that conversation would not go anywhere… Mainly because I believe, we have already assumed a position of objective rationality(which is untrue)and put something on the table neither of us can uphold… I regularly see where in the process of calling out the other side’s fallacy, people end up making other fallacies or sometimes even the same one they are calling the person out for. Cos We are all human.
I can make the case of your reply being an ignoratio elenchi. But as I said above it’s really not that important and doesn’t make for good conversation (atleast from my own prejudice)
Uh…yah. Glad you see this point.
Now, “how” is evidenced via evolution as a process.
You say “WHY”… this is where we part “ways”. The invisible “thingy” with no evidence is waved about as an answer from various human minds (which may have drug influence or mental health issues…) “evidenced” by WRITTEN claims of Bronze Age men.
I don’t need a “why” answered. It just “is”.
I withhold belief in GOD because there is no demonstrable evidence beyond “personal interpretation” “feelings” …ranging from organized group think organizations who don’t pay taxes to the cornball on the street…
NO NO NO - the atheist says “PROVE YOUR CLAIM!
I’ve never said “there is no god” … I have said YOU HAVE NOT convinced me with your lame ass “standards of evidence” and “personal feeling experiences”…
IF I believed everyone’s CLAIMS based on the same level of evidence you want me to buy- I’d also have to believe that reptilians are running the world cloaked as humans!!!
Double-checked Cranky’s post (has to search cause your link is weird and I assume since you’re replying to “him” it’s his words you are referencing)
Nice try with “IMPLY” - you “implying” something yourself???
#2 point to Cranky is valid …main reason I look to the scientific method and peer review and testing and modelling AND standards for evidence…
#3 is USED in arguments to get as close to what “is true” or “reasonable” … look up “Fallacies”… use them - learn about them - they work…even in your own mind when making “decisions” (Ie am I deluding myself? Should I buy this car, it looks so cool ?)
Atheism isn’t an ideology.
Atheism is not an ideology on the fence, rather it questions the evidence for the existence of a God or Gods.
Atheism isn’t an ideology at all, and I have seen no objective evidence for any deity to question, only subjective anecdotal claims, and irrational polemic.
Rubbish sorry, firstly atheism is not a denial there is a deity, secondly species evolution is a scientific fact, and lastly atheism has nothing to do with evolution, though the scientific fact of evolution kills creationism stone dead, which is why creationist have such a chip on their shoulder and waste so much time trying to deny it. I am an atheist because no theist can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity.
Sorry but that is complete nonsense.
It doesn’t debunk unicorns either, or mermaids, what’s your point?
Nope, wrong again, atheism is the lack or absence of belief in a deity, nothing more. I am an atheist and I have never made that claim, I simply don’t believe a deity exists as no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for their god claim.
They are straw man fallacies you’ve created. Evolution is a scientific fact, and I no more need to have a complete understand of the entire theory than I do of Newton’s theories of gravity to know they are facts. There is no atheist dogma, you;re talking bollocks sorry. This is well worn theist propaganda.
There is no atheist ideology, and you are correcting nothing, just displaying your ignorance of basic facts and even word definitions.
Atheism is not an ideology.
- disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
- a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ATHEISM IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY.
The only thing you left out was pistols at dawn.
Pretty sure he did not, he merely pointed out there isn’t a shred of objective evidence for any creation myth.
That’s why logic is necessary, it is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, in order to filter out bias and of course superstitions like regions.
No that’s nonsense again, there are known logical fallacies, these are called common logical fallacies if they occur in informal logic. Theists use these type of fallacies all the time, as you have done above using straw man fallacies about atheism. This is irrational - by definition.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
Not required to be an atheist. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with me (and lots of others) being an atheist.
And your theist ideology consists of a shallow appeal to imagined evidence of design in nature, and a simplistic equation that states we don’t know, therefore god.
Everything you think you know about god is just the product of childhood indoctrination based on ancient myths distorted through telling and retelling across millennia.
There is no atheist interpretation of science. Science stands on its own merits. It is the sole source of our knowledge of the world. It is the sole provider of advances that have dramatically improved the human condition.
Atheism isn’t an “ideology”. I’ll now explain why in detail.
Every well-defined ideology in existence, involves the presentation of one or more assertions, intended to be treated as purportedly constituting “axioms” about the operation of some aspect of the universe and its contents.
Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. That is IT. In short, it consists of “YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertion”.
Requesting that someone else support their assertions in a proper manner isn’t an “ideology”, it’s the foundation of proper discourse in every rigorously constituted discipline.
Moving on …
Glad you agree with me. Yes, I know what I did here, but I did it for sound discoursive reasons.
We’ve yet to see mythology fanboys present real evidence. Regurgitation of unsupported mythological assertions as if they purportedly constitute fact, or the peddling of risible ex recto apologetic fabrications doesn’t count as “evidence”.
This has never happened. See above.
Ah, lies, Which we see so often from mythology fanboys here.
First of all, evolution isn’t a “random” process. And at this point, it’s time to deal with the non-rigorous, and at times, deliberately duplicitous, use of the word “random” by mythology fanboys, compared with how it’s actually used in genuine scientific circles.
Mythology fanboys think “random” means “happened by accident, with no underlying purpose or mechanism”. The number of times we’ve seen mythology fanboys use the word “random” to this effect (frequently accompanied by those other mythology fanboy dog-whistle words, “accident” and “chance”), provides the body of observational data pointing to this usage, which is frequently not so much a result of ignorance, but of wilful apologetic duplicity. Of course, there are mythology fanboys who are too stupid to understand actual scientific postulates, but a lot of the ideological stormtroopers for creationism in particular are demonstrably mendacious.
Now it’s time to deal with how the word “random” is used in proper, rigorous scientific circles. The first part of the proper scientific usage centres upon an elementary fact, namely that scientists have determined that a given event is not only the product of testable natural processes, but that multiple possibilities exist for the testable natural processes generating the event of interest. In the case of a mutation, this is the result of chemical reactions affecting a DNA molecule, but there are dozens, if not hundreds, of such possible reactions, and a multiplicity of reactions can produce a given mutation.
However, if there does not exist an audit trail of data informing scientists which of those possible reactions actually occurred, then it becomes necessary to model the event using a probability distribution. with proababilities assigned to each of possible reactions known to be implicated in a mutation of the requisite class. At this point, “random” becomes shorthand for “we know one of these interactions generated the event, but not precisely which one”.
At this point, scientists turn to a well-known product of statistics, known as Markov chain processes, which are used to model the behaviour of systems containing a probabilistic component. The moment a probability distribution is applicable to one’s interactions of interest, Markov chain processes are brought into play, not least because they’ve been demonstrated to be reliable and successful at modelling systems with a probabilistic component, which is, lo and behold, why they were invented in the first place.
As a corollary, scientists regard a process as “random” only in the sense that multiple testable natural processes are known to produce the requisite change of state, but the precise instance thereof in operation is not known in the cse being studied. In short, NO scientist operates on the basis of the “by accident with no purpose or mechanism” canard peddled by mythology fanboys.
Do learn this elementary concept before embarrassing yourself further here.
Second, as for the idea that atheism involves peddling the assertion that “no god exists”, in my case this is a manifest lie, as anyone accessing my voluminous output here and elsewhere will readily discover. Examples of my output in the past that are relevant here, include this post on the old version of these forums, along with this post and this post, the latter of these being of particular import, because therein, I posted the following:
along with the following:
What part of “we reject specific asserted candidates for valid reasons” do you not understand?
In short, I’m on public record as welcoming real evidence for an actual real god type entity, not least because I’ll enjoy the butthurt from mythology fanboys, when the entity in question turns out to be nothing like their cartoon caricatures from their sad little mythologies.
Indeed, I’ve written posts on the topic of the “god question” that you manifestly don’t even know exist, and in which I’ve presented postulates that would make you blow an artery if you read them.
Moving on …
Bullshit. First of all, numerous objections to mythology fanboy assertions independent of any input from evolutionary biology exist. Or have you simply squatted in the complacent indolence that is typical of your ilk?
Second, what part of “merely asserted entities can be safely discarded” do you not understand? This isn’t “bias”, it’s how proper discourse works. Learn about it.
It destroys many of the assertions contained in your sad little mythology. Which on its own should be telling you something important.
Already dealt with this lie above …
At the moment, the evidence for your cartoon magic man from your goat herder mythology is precisely zero. This isn’t “opinion”, it’s observable fact. Not least because if anyone had ever provided genuine evidence for your cartoon magic man in the past, that evidence would have become part of mainstream science, and whoever alighted upon said evidence would have been a guaranteed candidate for a Nobel. That this hasn’t happened should be telling you something important.
I’ve spent the past decade poring over nearly 4,000 peer reviewed papers in evolutionary biology. If you want to assert that I’m “ignorant” of the postulates of evolutionary biology, then fucking bring it on. I’ll enjoy shredding your bullshit right down to its constituent quarks.
Ah, more mythology fanboy lies.
What part of “some of us learned about the proper nature of science before your sperm met your egg” do you not understand?
We understand that science is the business of discerning the operation of the universe and its contents, by diligent analysis of observational data. No fucking “dogma” involved.
Except as I’ve expounded above, we don’t have a fucking “ideology”. Drop this pathetic lie NOW.
Bullshit. you’re not “correcting” anything, you’re merely parroting tiresome and duplicitous mythology fanboy canards we’ve seen and pounded to pulp many times before.
is a figment of your duplicitous mythology fanboy imagination. See above.
Perhaps if you actually learned some fucking science, you’d be in a position to talk.
You mean YOUR ideologies.