Anti-theist

None-answer really. You DESIRE to be intellectual but are stopped and revert back to the "we" crap, as though majority decides something. But your assertions don't prove a thing, you just believe they do because you are, and I quote, "fallible" but have told yourself you are superior being in the non-Christian group.

Taq writes: Because I see it happening all of the time in cell culture.

Oh Taq, you surely know you are only fooling yourself by stating this inaccurate thing.

In experiments to replicate abiogenesis or try and see even the most basic building blocks arise naturally there is no such example. You refer to the programming of actually complete living cells designed and in place on totalum.

Not at all the same thing.

Taq writes: Has anyone seen God's body wash up on shore?

Have the bodies of the brothers that escaped Alcatraz been found washed up on shore?

The thing about evidence is you have to make sure it would follow. With your example it's an example of an argument called a RIGGED DICE. You use and abuse hindsight to think of a piece of evidence for God existing full well knowing it doesn't exist, then you request that particular piece of evidence. (asking for me to score through a goal hoop that can't be scored through physically)

Atheists being, "fallible" never seem to notice this biased game they are playing.

Taq writes: Again, we think it is entertaining when you think you can prove yourself right by simply proclaiming yourself to be right.

You can collectively agree that is what I am doing as an argumentum ad populum fallacy but you haven't shown how I am wrong in anyway whatsoever by barely asserting that I am only proclaiming myself to be right.

I provided reasonings and arguments as to why I am right. Ironically those, "fallible biases" won't seem to allow you to see that ironically it is you that is proclaiming your group to be right with a bare assertion fallacy about what you say I am doing.

Is it a good sign that you can lie to yourself in this way? I don't think so. I offered up rational discourse and you closed down pretty quickly and got the bare-assertion gun out when you didn't really have any answers.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

mike the wiz writes: None-answer really. You DESIRE to be intellectual but are stopped and revert back to the "we" crap, as though majority decides something. But your assertions don't prove a thing, you just believe they do because you are, and I quote, "fallible" but have told yourself you are superior being in the non-Christian group.

Your pretend mind-reading abilities are also entertaining.

Oh Taq, you surely know you are only fooling yourself by stating this inaccurate thing.

It isn't inaccurate. I see DNA replicated, RNA trascribed, proteins translated, and the interaction of all these processes which forms a new cell, right in cell culture. If this didn't happen there would only be one cell in the whole world.

The thing about evidence is you have to make sure it would follow. With your example it's an example of an argument called a RIGGED DICE. You use and abuse hindsight to think of a piece of evidence for God existing full well knowing it doesn't exist, then you request that particular piece of evidence.

You are the one who offered giant squid as the model for evidence, not me. The rigged dice are of your making.

You can collectively agree that is what I am doing as an argumentum ad populum fallacy but you haven't shown how I am wrong in anyway whatsoever by barely asserting that I am only proclaiming myself to be right.

Ever heard of the burden of proof? You are the one who claims God exists, so the burden of proof lies with you. As Hitch said, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I provided reasonings and arguments as to why I am right.

All you said is "If God exists then you are wrong". That's not a reasoned argument.

So this was an easy win. Basically I answered all posts and didn't get any proper answers back, nobody addressed anything.

Something to think about isn't it? That one creationist, that evil "religious idiot" you think me, can turn up for one hour and get the checkmate EASILY, which any honest person can read and clearly see.

Did I insult? No. Did I assert? No. Was I hostile? No.

Did I as a, "religionist" have any problems at all refuting the superior atheists? Not in the least.

It should be a lesson but likely won't be, it will just be eggs and tomatoes on my way out the door.

How sad that a once alive-forum has become a den of vipers. Why I logged in I'll never know, there is nothing more INTRANSIGENT and inflexible as a dedicated anti-theist.

I had hoped there may be one or two reasonable ones I could just discuss those things with, Taq sort of started well but clammed up real quick once he found out I had answers.

Wasn't it Einstein that said to expect a different result when doing the same thing again and again is the definition of insanity?

Why do you always assume I won't have answers when you know my abilities? It's bizarre, you are like that bear that rocks back and forth in it's cage because it's been locked up for so long.

The real reason I always win is because it is really God's wisdom in me. It isn't me, it's what God has done in me. God will show that Him and one person are a majority, that is the power of His wisdom. You cannot defeat the one that designed all of the lifeforms when you can't come anywhere near that level of designer intelligence.

Me myself in and of myself I am nothing, but the knowledge and wisdom of God? Not one man on earth can win against it.

Deep down you liars must surely see it. It is a shame you only can see me, and not the one that is really refuting you. Even now the Lord would accept humility if you looked into His words and found Him with a humble heart and admitted like me you are just a bit of sinful flesh.

I wish your all well. (Despite the barrage of insults you always throw at me every time I come here. Lol)

mike the wiz writes: So this was an easy win. Basically I answered all posts and didn't get any proper answers back, nobody addressed anything.

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."--Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

Mikes argument of the day? "If I am right then you are wrong. Ha, I win."

As long as you realise this could never be aimed at any specific religious person anyway for if there is a general "stupidity" to "theisms" (as you specifically mention the plural) then because so many of the "theisms" are basically mutually exclusive then an example of that stupidity may only belong to certain "theisms" but not others.

Seriously? You don’t think there are enough common attributes among all practitioners of all religions that stupid could not be applied? Denying reality and substituting your own is the poster child of stupid, is it not? That is at the very base of every religion ever created. You’re a believer, Mike, and, yeah, that paints you with the same brush.

It's kind of like if you look at the stat for atheists generally being smarter than, "religious" people, as a way of then implying that Dan the theist must surely then be stupid compared to Pete the atheist. But in fact Dan having a higher IQ is not precluded and would not contradict the general stat anyway.

Dan can be a Fields Medal recipient, for all it’s worth. If the circuitry of his electrochemical noggin allows for such fantasy to be considered actual, viable, real … he’s stupid.

Conclusion; even if you presented things against religious people and called it stupidity, it wouldn't follow that any specific religious person could be included in that evaluation anyway.

Conclusion; If you cling to your religious fantasies in the face of reality … if you are religious … then you are stupid.

I shall try and explain it for you; You see if you are going to say there is something, "stupid" with believing in Thor and you explain that particular stupid thing, the problem is going to be since that is a different god to mine it can't really say anything about me anyway. Nor could it say anything about someone that worships nature for example.

Oh, you twist and turn so pretty. There is no difference between you, whatever god you are so enthralled with today, astrologers, modern druids or crystal-power enhanced Gwyneth Paltrow. You believe this crap. You drank the Kool Aid.

In this universe, Mike, with what we know of it, drinking the Kool Aid of religion or any other woo-woo majik you care to throw in here is a major lapse in intellect, in critical thinking and in those qualities that would keep you from being called stupid.

In other words logically it is PROVABLE that there can be many stupid things about "theisms", none of which apply to believing in the Lord, for obviously if the Lord exists many theisms don't, perhaps 99.9999% of them and if they are mostly false then it follows they are inventions and if they are inventions mostly then it follows that we expect a lot of stupidity from the atheists of the real God you would term, "theists" or, "religionists."

With logic like that it’s no wonder you drank the Kool Aid.

So ironically the stupidity of false theisms is actually atheist to the real God so those stupidities are actually atheist in terms of a Christian perspective because from our perspective you either are born again and have the spirit of God or you do not. That means Buddhists, Muslims and atheists are all equally non-believers from the perspective of the bible

The farce is strong with this one.

AZPaul3 writes: Religionists What's that? It's just an invented atheistic-word that only has meaning to atheists.

Don’t worry your head about that. It’s an English word with a self-evident meaning you wouldn’t comprehend.
The rest of your missive was … twisted, Mike.
Really, Mike, you’re a twisted logic bone in an intellectual desert.

And stop calling yourself a pig, Mike. It’s undignified.
And that’s where demons go when they are cast out.
Are you trying to tell us something?

Mike the Wiz writes: The real reason I always win is because it is really God's wisdom in me.

Ah yes, yet another refreshing example of Christian humility.

Do you have anything of substance to say that is not about you?

Bye Mike, feel free to drop back in anytime to cheer us all up with your crazed pseudo-logic and fake humility.

MTW writes: For those who really do care about rational thinking, here's some things to consider. First of all with, "religion", the problem is how broad the term is.(...)CONCLUSION: Really it's all semantics. What most atheists aren't smart enough to know they are doing is called an ASSOCIATION FALLACY. What you do is you LUMP people into two categories, and you basically venerate and exalt one category (atheism) and in the other group you LUMP all of the negative traits.

I agree with your overall assessment except to clarify the terminology. I would clarify your argument as follows:

Phats edited version writes: What you do is you LUMP people into two categories, and you basically venerate and exalt one category (Critical Thinking and Skepticism pending objective evidence) and the other group (Yours and Mine) The two categories are thus Objective Reproducible Evidence in opposition to Subjective Belief.

jar goes so far as to claim the latter is absurd. I think he really despises the Biblical Christians, but he has no room to label their beliefs as impossible.

The many opponents of your belief and mine are unified in opposition to the very idea of a cosmic authority to whom they would become accountable to. It is a battle for control of free willed character. Oh but they have every sacred right to impose cancel culture and legislate reparations! (NOT)

Though you purposefully come across as somewhat arrogant, I know that you do it because it frustrates your opponents.
(I'll take all of you on in an IQ test! )

... but our opponents will and do differentiate between raw intelligence and rational educated evidence based thinking. To them, that always trumps belief of any kind. But then...they don't believe in Jesus as living and active. Perhaps they best bow to the superior intelligence. Now Who is He, again?

Perhaps a question for you, Mike. What concrete objective evidence would we give them?

Edited by Phat, : better clarified thinking for the argument I chose.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

mike the wiz writes: But if you use a BROAD epithet such as, "mammal", now you can associate me with filthy pigs.

Such is true, a broad term can be used inappropriately.
Of course, it can also be used appropriately.

That is, if you wanted to discuss any warm-blooded, furry-or-hairy, milk-from-mother-drinking babies kind of creature... then using the term "mammal" is a great choice.

With the term religionist... you're right. One could associate "belief in an invisible sky lord" along with "belief in talking snakes" or "belief in magic crystals."

Or, it could also be used appropriately.
That is, if one is talking about "holding any beliefs about the nature of reality without regard or care for scientific evidence one way or another" - then, well, "religionist" seems like a pretty decent term.

mike the wiz writes: By analogy, if you are say described as a snake, and I can only say things about snakes, I can't really associate you with dirty rats or filthy pigs. But if you are described as a, "mammal", because the term is BROADER you can then ASSOCIATE me with those things.

Snakes are not mammals.

But, as stated in my previous post, broad terms can be used inappropriately, or appropriately.

Just saying that a broad term can be used in a wrong way doesn't show that it *is* being used in a wrong way in this context.

"Religion," here, is being used broadly to describe people who hold beliefs about reality without taking into the scientific evidence and implications that has been so good at describing that reality so far.

It seems to be an appropriate use of the term.

So think about it, if atheism is ultimately false then it is a sort of science-fiction alongside religious fictions. Sort of like your DVD collection might contain fictional drama, science fiction, supernatural fiction, fantasy fiction, etc....

Of course.
And if pigs could fly then wouldn't have a saying like "Not going to happen until pigs fly!"

But pigs can't fly.
And atheism doesn't seem ultimately false at this time.

CONCLUSION: Really it's all semantics.

That's the only way it helps your case, yes - if you call it "all semantics."
But, it's not all semantics, is it?

What you're doing is comparing two different ways of identifying the truth about reality.

1. There's not only 2 ways. So right off the bat you're not playing with a full deck.

2a. Religion - Identifying the truth about reality by holding to beliefs interpreted from an ancient text.
2b. Science - Identifying the truth about reality by testing reality, following where the evidence leads, and seeing what happens.

Religion has a historical track record of getting a great many things wrong about reality and needing to be corrected by science.
Science has a historical track record of getting a few things wrong about reality... and needing to be corrected by... more science.

I'll leave it to the reader to decide which one they want to follow when attempting to discover the truth about aspects of reality.
But one thing is for certain - it's not "just semantics" - there's clear and obvious differences.

mike the wiz writes: For example there are in prison a small percentage of innocent people. "From where the jury sat" they were guilty yet the innocent know they are innocent.

Of course there is.

No one said the system is perfect.
Only the best we have right now.

What better system are you putting forward?

One based on people's personal declaration of their innocence instead of the available evidence?
I don't think that would be better. I think that would be much, much worse.

With atheism how can you not conflate genuine ignorance with the negative? For example if we are right and the Lord does exist and His spirit is in us, we do have eternal life, have experienced the miraculous etc.....how can you know that your own perspective of looking at it and thinking it ridiculous is actually not a symptom of your own personal ignorance?

By looking at the available evidence in reality.

Right now, there's no evidence that says miracles actually even happen.
There is evidence that people say miracles happen when they actually did not (sometimes purposefully trying to deceive!)

When actual evidence for the Lord's existence is... anywhere... then it will become an idea with more credence.
Until then, it stays at the same level of reality-credentials as Thor and Zeus - things people believed in with devout fervor - willing to give their lives for it... but seem to be, unfortunately for them - wrong.

mike the wiz writes: So when evolutionists tell me I am an ignorant idiot and I go and score 90% on logic and science tests or more, or solve difficult riddles I thought were beyond me it isn't so much I am impressed I am more surprised by that.

Those who score so highly on tests are able to understand the logic and science so well that they can explain their results to others without logical or scientific errors and all seekers-of-the-truth are able to see the same, correct answer.

Please, use your logic and science to show that you know the Lord exists.
I would like to learn.

But, if your history is any indication, this is where you tend to fall away from logic and science and use "because I think He does" as a reason that the Lord actually exists.

Phat writes: ... but our opponents will and do differentiate between raw intelligence and rational educated evidence based thinking. To them, that always trumps belief of any kind.

Not always, no.
But when appropriate - yes.

That is, if we're trying to "identify the truth about aspects of reality" - then we know from history that evidence-based-thinking has a much better track record on getting to the right answer as opposed to belief-of-any-kind.

However, when attempting to find ways to express my love for my wife to her - evidence-based-thinking tends to come off a little... flat. Where belief-in-our-love tends to lead me to ideas and efforts-of-love that make her far happier and feeling like I'm focused on her.

Use what's best for where it's best suited.
What could possible be the reason to do anything else?

However, when attempting to find ways to express my love for my wife to her - evidence-based-thinking tends to come off a little... flat.

Then you're not doing it right.

Where belief-in-our-love tends to lead me to ideas and efforts-of-love that make her far happier and feeling like I'm focused on her.

Your "belief-in-our-love" is the result of the physical evidence of the depth of your emotional experience with her. All the little presents, kindnesses, whispered sweet nothings build the emotional state we monkeys call love.

Your want to please her, to focus on her, is because she actually exists in this universe and the physical state of your electrochemical noggin is such that you like this girl. There is nothing belief-based happening here.

The physical evidence of your relationship and its attendant emotional effect on your monkey brain is the cold hard physical reality of your belief in your love.

It's still cute. And endearing.

But it is, as is everything, evidence-based.

Emotional belief-based perception exists but only as a result of intellectual impairment. To believe in an unevidenced entity, be it some god, crystal power or the cosmic consciousness, will only result when an impaired brain sees such fantasies as real, viable as against demonstrable reality.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Phat writes: jar goes so far as to claim the latter is absurd. I think he really despises the Biblical Christians, but he has no room to label their beliefs as impossible.

Those who have read and mastered the material have all the right to express their opinions on the material.

Phat, your response does not make sense to me.

When my wife died in 2012 in our bedroom, the first thing I got to deal with were the police, who all but accused me of murder. After they left, then I got to call all the friends and relatives, starting with the daughter. This was also quite unpleasant.

After that I was finally alone to deal with grief.

Tried to entertain myself by listening to some old 72 live concert Genesis but that just made me more sad.

So, I reread in order:

The Tao (short two hour read)
The Gospels (all four, takes days)
The Bhagavad Gita (one day, if dedicated)

That helped more than expected.

Do you see the difference in our subsequent behaviors?

Edited by anglagard, : missing letter