Why don't you believe?

Hey :wave: Cali :butterfly:

If technology ever gets there - could we like trade brains for a day?

Actually - off topic - my youngest said that if we traded brains (him and I) we wouldn’t even “know” we traded…

Pardon?
What ideology?

Seems you may not have quite grasped the meaning of word ‘atheist’; from the Greek ‘atheos’ a=not/without theos=god.

The atheist does not believe in gods. That’s it. Nothing else whatsoever is implied or may be inferred.

Atheism is NOT philosophical position,an ideology, political persuasion or a club.

Really.I hadn’t noticed. You don’t even understand the meaning of ‘atheist’. Why on earth should I allow myself to be corrected by you?

Just so there is no misunderstanding; BY DEFINITION ,there is no such thing as an atheist ideology nor an atheist interpretation of science.

Muppet

2 Likes

I doubt he will get off his script. He has an agenda, built on misrepresenting what an atheist is, the validity of science, and changing definitions to suit his argument.

Troll, or simply the usual disingenuous apologist?–and these people act surprised when their posts are treated with ridicule and contempt .I think it may be because they have some kind of martyr thing going on.----

1 Like

Blockquote

More inane bullshit I see…

  1. [quote=“Henry_Shymexx, post:150, topic:282”]
    Every ideology professes an opinion or bias, and atheism is not exempt.
    [/quote]

It is not our fault you did not finish High School Had you finished you might have been able to use a dictionary.
i·de·ol·o·gy: a system of ideas and ideals,

Atheism: A lack of belief - (A LACK OF IDEOLOGY!) in God or gods. Demonstrate anything at all that you could conclude all atheists believe… There are no holy books, no leaders, no official cannon of beliefs, and very few idiots who would mistake your posts for anything but trolling.

  1. [quote=“Henry_Shymexx, post:150, topic:282”]
    When theists present evidence of God as creator,
    [/quote]

What fucking delusion are you living under? Oh wait! I actually know the answer to that one… “The God Delusion.” You have NO EVIDENCE for the existence of your god . None…

  1. EVOLUTION AGAIN? REALLY? I told you, you win. Evolution is a complete farce. All of science is wrong. We do not need any of it. NOW DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF YOUR GOD,.
1 Like

Below is your exact statement I quoted, exactly the way I quoted it. The whole premise was for you to clarify your statement, which could have easily been answered with a, “this was what I was tracking when I made that statement”…but your reply was on a whole different tangent. I’m not sure why you trying to pitch your tent on something that is documented.

You can check back and read your reply and guage if it was a response to the question or a response to a question you made up.

It seems you missed the point I was making. Basically I pointing out the realities of human nature from behavioural science but again you seem to have sliced and misconstrued it.

I think there’s a considerable difference between

“I don’t believe in any creation myths” OR “I don’t believe the universe was created”

AND

“The Universe was not created”

The latter seems like a positive claim to me, coming from a position of certainty, whilst the former comes from a position of uncertainty ie “I don’t know, so I withhold belief”

On that note, is it safe to conclude that you’ve committed a strawman?

1 Like

Confusing those two sounds like splitting.

1 Like

Probably because it is, and therefore attracts the burden of proof. Just as the affirming claims of “there is no god” and "I believe there is no god.

Mr? I don’t believe and do not claim to know. I call myself an agnostic atheist.

It wasn’t my statement, you can’t even get the poster correct.

I don’t need to check back, as I can read, and that statement by Boomer, says he doesn’t believe the universe was created, plain as day for everyone to see.

So either you’re too stupid to know the difference between the assertion to not believe your claim, or the very different lie you posted that he was implying a contrary claim. Or you are trolling, which is it?


Nonsense, and here is your original claim and my response so everyone can see you’re talking bollocks yet again.

LOGIC DOES NOT MAKE BARE ASSUMPTIONS.

You also ignored my question, as do all theists, not that anyone here is surprised at such dishonesty.

2 Likes

The old fallacy, “intelligence is perfection”, which we contravene in our own IDs. You consider yourself intelligent, yet never made a perfect thing. Learn boy, intelligence is simply defined pattern towards purpose, god is perfection. Wanna look like a supermodel? Intelligence has brought gyms. Use both.
Genes maintain pattern in reproduction and sustenance not randomly altering self, each bearing its species, never crossing, and each species with its set of conjugate features. That’s organisation, administration… one word, intelligence.

More huff-puff, I almost smh off. These, as most findings of evolutionists, points rather to ID. Does this still make an argument if same intelligence that coded the genes, coded the syntax of these? Or are these events not caused under same defined conditions, whatever the variables, everytime they occur? Like A+B+C always=D syntax. You only point to coordination associated with intelligence. Now include the hows of water cycle, nutrient cycle, gaseous cycles, all we need to sustain life, coded into and self-sustained in nature, order in galactic systems…ID!!
If you’d deny ID in nature, it’s fine. Every intelligent person, even you, can easily guess why any would relish in denial.

Not really. Just think it’s courtesy to remind you, you really aren’t standing on any logical ground but in denial.

Evolutionist’s dreamland. Already challenged you to substantiate evidences, so they’re debunked again.

Recycled debunked evo myths. Subspeciation under highly manipulated laboratory conditions, better called adaptation can never prove trans-speciation, not to mention under uncontrolled conditions.

Dear logic criminal, Sheldon, hereby sentenced to… for contravention of section #9 and #10 of David’s logic laws.
Plus, guess what? this is how many religious doctrines became too and well, so much for that.

ROFLMAO, good one, if you hoped the christian part would make a stronger case. So much for your ‘scientific method’. Logic, is self-subsistent. All he’s got here is the old ignoratio elenchi, the interpolation into subspeciation.

Fine. Taken you admit to having no objective evidence for the evo rhetoric.
Long as you don’t bring it up till ready to subject it to thorough scrutiny, we’re good. My point of inviting you my thread was to show all so called “objective evidence” of current evo rhetoric is subjective and simply hopeful leaps, leaving the atheist only an option of agnosticism of origins with admission to ID. If you already put evolution in its place, we move.
As I said, the burden to find truth lies on you solely. We’re all fallible, so creator coded truth into your innate existence so another’s defect wouldn’t subvert your truth quest. So scrap that “if none’s able to convince me, I’m justified with my belief”, smelt miles away. It’s only courtesy we engage each other and a fortune if you’re convinced.
Proof of faith, as said before, lies not in logic. If you’d force all down that route, then you weren’t willing to give faith it’s place. Logic confirmed existence beyond its domain, across the Singularity, hence witnessing against who would limit existence to it. Again, I have pointed out, faculties of your existence not logically but empirically realised. There, is the track of faith’s quest, but you keep ignoring.

and faith is utterly useless in validating claims or beliefs, as there is literally nothing one could not believe using faith. I keep asking, if you believe something without any objective evidence, or based on faith alone in other words, then what is your criteria for disbelieving anything?<<<<

None should believe anything without objective evidence or tangibility, else creator needn’t give us senses. Come this far, still learnt nothing bout faith but holding your misconception.
Faith’s not believing blindly nor is creator requiring that anyone believe anything but existence. Paul didn’t try to believe any bout Jesus but simply contacted faith which, for the umpteenth time, is a substrate, the point in Hebrews, you miss. Like matter, to be contacted. Not trying to prove any nor proven by any, only a germ, growing itself into matter superimposing it’s quality. We don’t prove rocks, water or any matter logically. We make contact to attest to their reality. The question on faith, if rightly grasped, should only be how to contact and the only case against creator is if he requires it without making it contactable.

My technique was gonna be, after debunking all “objective evidence” for evo theory on my thread and showing the hypocritical denial in standing on it, going on to show logic, and so science, is absolute only in its domain, the material universe, which is but a subset of the whole of existence, then begin awaken you to other domains of existence. But you seem to care less for real answers on faith than girlie chit-chat and mudslinging tirades. We would gain nothing that way. At the rate were going, I may just have to drop some and prolly bow out.

Valid questions on existence and beyond logic, to be answered, in the quest of faith:
1. Does the Singularity not point to an existence beyond the current coordinate system and material plane?
2. Does it not show the limitation of current logic to account for existence beyond?
3. Isn’t the material plane considered real firstly because we are in some way conscious of it ever before logic?
4. Is logic then the absolute determinant of existence or derived from a precedent viz. consciousness?
5. Are there other modes of consciousness asides our physical senses?
6. Is this material plane all we’re conscious of?
7. If ID is evidenced in human intelligence, the body’s design and all lower intelligence littered across the universe, then as per the human-robot analogy, could there be a higher intelligence across the singularity?
8. If such higher intelligence is, and would relate with us, is it possible that in our design is ability to transcend this plane?
9. If so, could there be weaved into us, faculties beyond our physical body?
10. Are we conscious of any such faculties in us even if not logically determined?
Are we conscious of:
i. a moral centre/conscience, poking us from time to time, guiding us also?
ii. an emotional centre for fear, anger, hate, anguish, worry etc., causal of the chemicals our bodies release with these?
iii. a metaphysical sense for dreams and visions, ESP?
iv. an imaginative centre?
v. a centre of desire for satisfaction and pleasure, which is the seat of boredom?
vi. A cognitive centre, affecting choice, causal to the brain’s directing the body towards imagined action.
If you really wanna go deep on faith, try seriously considering these questions.
If it ends here, we should at least end on a cordial note. If you’d still like a meaningful discussion on faith, consider my questions, then we can proceed else I hope you find truth nonetheless.

Even the title seems confused. If something is valid, it is logical.

1 Like

What singularity? :woozy_face:

You don’t know what fallacy means clearly. But then you don’t know what a scientific theory is either, so pretty typical for a creationist. I long ago stopped being surprised at how ignorant religion keeps many of its adherents.

You’re an arrogant clown, especially considering your posts contain some of the most ignorant idiotic drivel we’ve seen on here.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity,

Since you’re the one denying a global scientific consensus based on over 160 years of the most intense scientific scrutiny, and all to justify an absurd unevidenced belief in a deity from a bronze age superstition. The hilarity of a creatard accusing anyone of denial is palpable.

2 Likes

No one asserted that we were intelligent. You asserted DNA was intelligent. If it was, wouldn’t it intelligently design more intelligently? It is a chemical process and nothing more. ]

Asserting your god is perfect does not make it so. You don’t get to assert a god into existence. Provide evidence or go away.

You haven’t got a clue of what logical ground any atheist is standing on. Your inane responses and idiotic assertions are evidence of this.

2 Likes

OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

As I already said the talkorigins website has a massive database of scientific evidence for evolution. It also has a massive database of creationist propaganda that science has debunked, most of them you have used here.

The fossil evidence alone establishes this.

Can anyone translate that gibberish into a coherent sentence?

So we can add English to the expanding list of things you don’t understand.

Your point is to deny an accepted scientific fact that contradicts the risible creation myth form your bronze age superstition, and of course the reason is because you can’t offer any objective evidence for your deity, or any creationist propaganda. Here’s a clue for you, because I know how slow creatards are…

SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE ESTABLISHED BY OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, THEY CAN ONLY BE FALSIFIED BY THE SAME. WHEN A CREATARD GETS A NOBEL PRIZE FOR FALSIFYING EVOLUTION I WILL ACCEPT IT, BUT CREATIONISM WILL REMAIN AN UNEVIDENCED SUPERSTITIOUS MYTH.

Rubbish, you don’t half talk drivel. The best method we have for validating claims is the scientific method, which creatards risibly think they can cherry pick when it contradicts their superstitious myths.

And as I said there is literally nothing you cannot believe using faith. So yes of course faith based beliefs are irrational by definition. The efficacy of logic is manifest, as is the uselessness of faith. As I keep asking what is your criteria for disbelief if you are prepared to believe using faith?

What singularity? You don’t have even the most basic grasp of logic, that is abundantly clear.

So please demonstrate some objective evidence for a deity? I keep asking, but you just keep posting the same subjective rhetoric and logical fallacies.

WHAT SINGULARITY?

Argumentum ad ingorantiam fallacy, textbook.

I have no idea what means sorry, is it from dungeons and dragons?

Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, in order to remove bias and flawed reasoning.

Please demonstrate some objective evidence for this. Also why have you phrased this as a question?

Again what are you taking about, is this a reference to dungeons and dragons only I have never played it.

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that is? Or just your usual incoherent fallacious rhetoric?

How are questions valid if they are beyond logic, and therefore by definition irrational, that’s such an obviously errant title I want to laugh out loud. Why on earth would any rational person want to pursue a quest for faith as well, faith is utterly useless for validating claims, as there is literally nothing you could not believe using faith, as I have already explained.

1 Like
1 Like

If Sorrentino thinks speciation hasn’t been established on rigorous grounds, and continues to post canards on the subject, he’s going to have a very bad time here …

2 Likes

One can only hope.Then he might fuck off , he’s really quite tedious.

Why yes,I’m intolerant of disingenuous fuckwits as well as being cranky, why do you ask?

1 Like