'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science' [moved]

[Jimmy D]

Um, : "The usual I jist Cain't see it!" response again? LOL! In a way I don't blame you. I mean what else can you say? But now there is a twist.

Now the claim that cogent reasoning itself is illogical is added. That is also understandable since acknowledging the value of cogent reasoning would force you to think cogently and that would only lead in one inexorable direction, a path which you don't want to follow because you know full well where that path leads and you want nothing to do with that unavoidable, [terrifying to you] destination.

BTW
Why not simply admit that the attribution of all this clever genius to mere mindless chemicals is a lunacy? That would confirm your dedication to finding truth and remove the serious doubt about sincerity that a continuous, pathetic claim of sudden and total inability to reason cogently engenders.

No. I asked you what point you were making. It seems your debating skills are only surpassed by your reading comprehension skills.

If I wanted to be talked to in a rude and condescending manner I'd go home for a chat with my wife.

 

[Jimmy D]

Um, : "The usual I jist Cain't see it!" response again? LOL! In a way I don't blame you. I mean what else can you say? But now there is a twist.

Now the claim that cogent reasoning itself is illogical is added. That is also understandable since acknowledging the value of cogent reasoning would force you to think cogently and that would only lead in one inexorable direction, a path which you don't want to follow because you know full well where that path leads and you want nothing to do with that unavoidable, [terrifying to you] destination.

BTW
Why not simply admit that the attribution of all this clever genius to mere mindless chemicals is a lunacy? That would confirm your dedication to finding truth and remove the serious doubt about sincerity that a continuous, pathetic claim of sudden and total inability to reason cogently engenders.

"I don't believe it!"

Why didn't you just say so?

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry but I cannot fathom complex organic computers, complicated organic cameras, lifelong functional three-chambered and four chambered organic pumps, and all the other intricate organization which shouts planning and mind as merely the result of fortuitous mindlessness dependent on millions of happy highly improbable accidents. No degree in physics is needed to detect fallacious reasoning and reaching that conclusion is fallacious reasoning par excellence..

Fortunately, that's not how evolution works.

Furthermore, whenever such fallacious reasoning is repeatedly brought atheists attention they unceremoniously proceed to ignore it...

Because they recognize it for the Creationist strawman that it is. A person who could make cogent arguments against the real theory of evolution would get serious attention.

 

[Hieronymus]

Fortunately, that's not how evolution works.

Correct.
Special evolution does not work at all.

 

[Jimmy D]

Correct.
Special evolution does not work at all.

What's "Special evolution"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No he dint! Paul didn't say that his mere claim made it so and neither did I.

I was talking about the verse you posted. I don't care where it comes from, who said it, or who wrote it.

You presented said verse as if it explains anything. But it does not. It merely asserts.
It merely asserts that "everything that exists is evidence of a creator". This is just a claim. It's not an explanation.

If you don't understand how, then I invite you to replace "creator" with anything your imagination can produce. It doesn't change anything.


"everything that exists is evidence of a cookie monster"
"everything that exists is evidence of a natural process"
"everything that exists is evidence of an extra-dimensional alien"
"everything that exists is evidence of a matrix"

These are just assertions.
You need to actually explain how it is evidence of whatever it is you are proposing.

The verse by itself, is just another claim.

Inability to see or refusal to see is OK.
After all, no one can force us to see what we refuse to see or prefer not to see.
That is a human right just as it is a human right not to try to force you to see what you refuse to see--see?

I look at the universe, and I don't see any evidence of any creators.
This is not because I "don't want to".

Merely "declaring" it to be evidence of a creator, is not sufficient.
I could "declare" it to be evidence of a natural process, and I'm sure that you won't be impressed by that either. And rightfully so.

But it works both ways.

 

[Hieronymus]

What's "Special evolution"?

Special as in species (kinds).
it's part of the general theory of evolution (which includes the big bang etc..)

 

[Jimmy D]

Special as in species (kinds).
it's part of the general theory of evolution (which includes the big bang etc..)

Oh, OK thanks, is it something you made up?

 

[Radrook]

Fortunately, that's not how evolution works.



Because they recognize it for the Creationist strawman that it is. A person who could make cogent arguments against the real theory of evolution would get serious attention.

I don't recall having described or even having slightly suggested how evolution works.
So I think that you are presently happily and enthusiastically tilting at windmills of your own creation.

Cogent arguments? Well, Cough! Cough! Unfortunately, they are subject to classification. Which means that any argument which proposes an ID is automatically, and unceremoniously tagged as fallacious and totally unworthy of discussion and immediately becomes a fair target for chortling barrages of atheist derision. That is the atheist modus operandi. Which is OK by me, you see, as long as I don't get bogged down in the irrational, mindlessly repetitious, time-wasting smorgasbord of a quagmire it creates.

Dats cuz I gots odder tings ta due. Numb sayin?

 

[Speedwell]

Special as in species (kinds).
it's part of the general theory of evolution (which includes the big bang etc..)

More nonsense from the Creationist propaganda mills. And then you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

"The general theory of evolution." ROFLMAO!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Special as in species (kinds).
it's part of the general theory of evolution (which includes the big bang etc..)

 

[DogmaHunter]

any argument which proposes an ID is automatically tagged as fallacious and totally unworthy of discussion and a fair target for immediate derision.

Yep. Just like any argument that proposes astrology.

That is the atheist modus operandi. Which is OK by me as long as I don't get bogged down in the irrational, mindlessly repetitious, time-wasting quagmire it creates.

An astrologist would also say that.

 

[Hieronymus]

Oh, OK thanks, is it something you made up?

No, it's just something you didn't know.
But, usually special evolution is referred to as ToE.
This excludes abiogenesis, which however is a part of the general theory of evolution.
It's an attempt to discern between the various naturalistic ideas concerning our origins.
Since 'special' is an adjective of 'species', it's special evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't recall having described or even having slightly suggested how evolution works.

From your post:
"Sorry but I cannot fathom complex organic computers, complicated organic cameras, lifelong functional three-chambered and four chambered organic pumps, and all the other intricate organization which shouts planning and mind as merely the result of fortuitous mindlessness dependent on millions of happy highly improbable accidents." (emphasis added).

Cogent arguments are subject to classification and any argument which proposes an ID is automatically tagged as fallacious and totally unworthy of discussion...

Intelligent design (no caps) is what is know in science as a unfalsifiable proposition, thus is not the kind of thing science deals with.

...and a fair target for immediate derision.

What is fair target for immediate derision is your abysmal ignorance of the math and science you are sneering at.

 

[Hieronymus]

View attachment 182597

You missed GENERAL.

 

[Jimmy D]

Cogent arguments? Well, Cough! Cough! Unfortunately, they are subject to classification. Which means that any argument which proposes an ID is automatically, and unceremoniously tagged as fallacious and totally unworthy of discussion and immediately becomes a fair target for chortling barrages of atheist derision.

To be fair, a lot of Christians would respond to 'ID' with chortling derision as well.

 

[Jimmy D]

You missed GENERAL.

Is the General Theory of Evolution different to the Theory of Evolution?

 

[Radrook]

Yep. Just like any argument that proposes astrology.


An astrologist would also say that.

Unfortunately that constitutes a false analogy.
In short, you are now desperately resorting to mindlessly comparing apples and mangoes with a slab of roasted beef.
What you don't resort to is a detailed analyses of why your argument is irrational and why the argument of ID is isn't.
But that's understandable as I said before.
When one doesn't have a leg to stand on one will uses crutches.

 

[Jimmy D]

Unfortunately that constitutes a false analogy.
In short, you are now desperately resorting to mindlessly comparing apples and mangoes with a slab of roasted beef.
What you don't resort to is a detailed analyses of why your argument is irrational and why the argument of ID is isn't.
But that's understandable as I said before.
When one doesn't have a leg to stand on one will uses crutches.

There you go with your assertions again, you haven't shown why it's wrong. Why is it a false analogy? It seemed reasonable to me.

 

[Radrook]

To be fair, a lot of Christians would respond to 'ID' with chortling derision as well.

Do you have statistics to back that up? If not then it is mere personal opinion and personal opinion.
But for the sake of a very brief discussion, let us assume that it were true.
So what?

Derision from a person claiming to be a Christian but who defends atheism is ridiculous.

Now you are going weird on me.