Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[Leumas]

Proof that this thread has gone on for too long. You have actually forgotten what this thread is about (hint: check the title).

Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife
You can't be an atheist if you believe that because it is not a "lack of belief".

You are SO dishonest!

I have demonstrated over and over that the Abrahamic God has all of the properties of a god that I described (including creator of the universe) but you are so in awe of your "p-god" cleverness that you constantly pretend that those posts don't exist.

Is the claim that the very creationists who want to "replace science with the bible" put an article in a peer reviewed journal or is somebody else responsible?

It wouldn't make much sense for creationists to publish an article in a peer reviewed article. It would be shot down in flames in double quick time.

According to your posts in the thread... it is about

• atheism
• belief
• the afterlife
• the "Abrahamic God the creator of universe"
• the collection of books about him that you call "the bible"

 

[psionl0]

According to you posts in the thread... it is about atheism and belief and the afterlife and the "Abrahamic God the creator of universe" and the collection of books about him that you call "the bible".

Another fail.

Although some thread drift will happen in a thread of this size, this thread is not about "proof of god" as claimed by the other poster.

 

[Leumas]

Another fail.

You might want to check the meaning of that word... and while you are at it also the meaning of the word fail too.

How can it be a fail to quote your own words when you are also the OP to show what YOU ARE talking about?

Although some thread drift will happen in a thread of this size, this thread is not about "proof of god" as claimed by the other poster.

And that is where YOU have failed... you are the OP not the poster and thus what YOU talk about is by default the topic of the OP and you are the one who talked about

• atheism
• belief
• the afterlife
• the "Abrahamic God the creator of universe"
• the collection of books about him that you call "the bible"

As shown here in the quotes of your own posts.

Although some thread drift will happen in a thread of this size, this thread is not about "proof of god" as claimed by the other poster.

So... yes this thread IS about proof of god... the "Abrahamic god of the bible"... according to you.

I have demonstrated over and over that the Abrahamic God has all of the properties of a god that I described (including creator of the universe)...

Is the claim that the very creationists who want to "replace science with the bible"...

 

[Thermal]

I am glad you checked... so let me see if I got right or not...



Nope... from my viewpoint it seems that you have not checked the logic of your concerned defenses for the Buybull and the New Tall tales.

Then your viewpoint is wrong. Not that I have concerned defenses for much, and certainly not for things that have no meaning.

You are arrantly mistaken... unless, of course, you believe that those two piles of mephitic bull and fetid lies for a HIDING GOD (or no god at all ¿do you know which?)

¿Se cual? Si, por supesto.

are indeed peddling and hawking for a REAL GOD... ¿do you?

Si, yo lo se. ¿Por que?

 

[sphenisc]

I make observations that conflict with the Theory of Evolution. I form a hypothesis. What is my next step?

The next step is to make predictions based on your hypothesis. To look for predictions which result in different outcomes from those derived from the ToE. And to test those predictions to see which is supported.

 

[Delvo]

And that's what we're still waiting for GDon's examples of a cdesign proponentist doing.

 

[theprestige]

Mephitic Bull is the name of my Godflesh cover band. And the name of my off-brand energy drink ("Mephitic Bull gives you things!")

 

[Leumas]

Then your viewpoint is wrong. Not that I have concerned defenses for much, and certainly not for things that have no meaning.

Aha... so you admit that the Buybull and New Tall tales are bull... well done!!!

¿Se cual? Si, por supesto.

Si, yo lo se. ¿Por que?

Not a bad attemp at Spanish... but... you need to be careful with your accents on the a, e and i... Se means one/themselve... Sé means "I know"... Si means if... Sí means yes... and Que means "that"... Qué means "what"... also the grammar is wrong... it should be ¿sabe(s) cuál?

¿Se cual? Si, por supesto.

So which then... is there a god and s/he/it is hiding or there is no god?

Si, yo lo se.

So you do know whether the Buybull and New Tall tales are peddling and hawking for a real GOD or not?

Ok... pray tell then!!!

¿Por que?

Because if they are then you are wrong about the "hidden or no god" bit... and if they are not then you are wrong about the Buybull and New Tall tales not being heaps of lies and piles of bull.

So... do you think the Buybull and the New Tall tales are peddling lies and bull... or are they talking about a real god who is not a hiding god and who exists?

You ought to be CONCERNED which is it because the AFTERLIFE might depend upon it.


.

 

[GDon]

And that's what we're still waiting for GDon's examples of a cdesign proponentist doing.

I'm sorry, what are you waiting for? I'll remind those who are just reading responses rather than what I've written: ID is a failed hypothesis, and failed for good reason: there is no evidence to support IC.

Now, some have argued against my description of ID as a "failed hypothesis" and fair enough. That's something we can debate on. But I've described earlier why ID proponents regard what they have done as "science": made observations, proposed a hypothesis and published in peer reviewed publications.

I'm happy to argue any point I've made. It's pointless to argue points I have NOT made. If you'd like to ask questions or critique any of my points, please QUOTE me first. Thank you.

 

[GDon]

The next step is to make predictions based on your hypothesis. To look for predictions which result in different outcomes from those derived from the ToE. And to test those predictions to see which is supported.

I guess that could be done but I think theories are more about making predictions than hypotheses? The next step for me is to confirm that the results can be confirmed, one way of which is to publish in peer reviewed publications for others to confirm the results.

 

[Leumas]

I guess that could be done but I think theories are more about making predictions than hypotheses? The next step for me is to confirm that the results can be confirmed, one way of which is to publish in peer reviewed publications for others to confirm the results.

Nope... you have been repeatedly told that this is NOT how "doing science" is done... you need to confirm your results YOURSELF BEFORE you publish... ones who manage to publish before confirming their results have either managed to find venal or negligent or imbecilic peers to review and allow them to publish unconfirmed claptrap... or have venally published in their own fake journals pretending to be legitimate.

...I've written: ID is a failed hypothesis, and failed for good reason: there is no evidence to support IC.

Evidently Behe does not believe that and neither do his minions at the DiscoveryHoodwinking Institute for Hawking Jesus.

Now, some have argued against my description of ID as a "failed hypothesis" and fair enough.

Nope... no one argued against your admittance of the fact that ID is a failed claptrap... the argument is that your usage of the word hypothesis is wrong since it was not ever a hypothesis but rather a RUSE and a LIE.

That's something we can debate on.

No you cannot... you need to admit FACTS.

But I've described earlier why ID proponents regard what they have done as "science": made observations, proposed a hypothesis and published in peer reviewed publications.

Which is arrantly and FACTUALLY not true on every count.

I'm happy to argue any point I've made. It's pointless to argue points I have NOT made.

There is no argument... FACTS proven over and over again are FACTS... you continued incessant indefatigable DENIAL OF FACTS is as you yourself said in your onw words

In a similar vein, and to paraphrase CS Lewis: Nothing worse than trying to defend weak arguments in defence of your worldview.....

Sometimes people continually using bad arguments do more harm against their own side than anything the other side can do....

If you'd like to ask questions or critique any of my points, please QUOTE me first. Thank you.

Ok... here you go... you saying that repeatedly trying to sneak in lies that you have admitted are lies might eventually become truth through incessant dogged chicanery of trying to shove through peer reviews.

It's not very different. Showing the validity of a new hypothesis by building a body of work through peer review is how the scientific consensus gets changed. ID proponents are going through that process. Who knows? Maybe their views will gain traction in the scientific community. Currently there is no evidence for the validity of the ID hypothesis, but let them keep trying. That's what science is all about.

There are qualified academics producing peer reviewed articles for intelligent design. In what way is that not science?

...
Anyone who appreciates science as science should be celebrating the publication of ID articles in peer review. It's the difference between religious claims and scientific claims.

If anyone has a problem with the idea that ID claims have been published in scientific journals and have passed peer review, then they have a problem with science.

 

[Leumas]

...I've written: ID is a failed hypothesis, and failed for good reason: there is no evidence to support IC.

But yet you hope one day they will subvert science with their lies by just managing to doggedly shove in their lies through the back door of science....

It's not very different. Showing the validity of a new hypothesis by building a body of work through peer review is how the scientific consensus gets changed. ID proponents are going through that process. Who knows? Maybe their views will gain traction in the scientific community. Currently there is no evidence for the validity of the ID hypothesis, but let them keep trying. That's what science is all about.

 

[Thermal]

Aha... so you admit that the Buybull and New Tall tales are bull... well done!!!

No, I did not. I have no idea what you are reading.

Not a bad attemp at Spanish

Who said it was Spanish? Or an attemp? No, I was just making up random terms that sounded like they meant something, but were only defined in my own mind. In your incorrect corrections, you missed the intentional misspelling of supuesto, too.

What's that you say? That's an annoying and pointlessly confusing thing to do? Couldn't agree more, hermano.

... but... you need to be careful with your accents on the a, e and i... Se means one/themselve... Sé means "I know"... Si means if... Sí means yes... and Que means "that"... Qué means "what"

I speak a butchered Spanglish for communicating with my Hispanic brethren on job sites and bars, and neither know nor care how it would be written. I'm shooting for talking to the brothers, not biliteracy.

... also the grammar is wrong... it should be ¿sabe(s) cuál?

You're wrong again. You asked "do you know which?" I responded correctly "Do I know which? Yes, of course". You say I should have responded "do you know which? Yes, of course" which makes makes no sense at all in any language.

So which then... is there a god and s/he/it is hiding or there is no god?

Neither. False dichotomy.

So you do know whether the Buybull and New Tall tales are peddling and hawking for a real GOD or not?

Ok... pray tell then!!!

1.They are not doing anything. They are a collection of old writings and lack sentience and agency.

2. You asked if I believed so before. Now you are switching to I know this. Are those goalposts getting heavy, or did you think I wouldn't notice that, or are you making up new words again? Are "believe" and "know" the same thing in Leumasspeak?

Because if they are then you are wrong about the "hidden or no god" bit... and if they are not then you are wrong about the Buybull and New Tall tales not being heaps of lies and piles of bull.

So... do you think the Buybull and the New Tall tales are peddling lies and bull... or are they talking about a real god who is not a hiding god and who exists?

Another false dichotomy. Yawn.

You ought to be CONCERNED which is it because the AFTERLIFE might depend upon it.

Nothing to do with me, Kemosabe.

 

[Leumas]

<snip wily evasions>

Wow... what astonishingly dexterous evasive tactics used in the above post to avoid answering the very simple questions...

1. Do the Buybull and the New Tall tales contain lies and bull... or not?
   
2. Is there a hiding god or not?

Nevertheless I can still glean that your answer to #1 is a definite "NO".... you are wrong!!!

For #2, I can glean that you think there is a god and he is not hiding... am I wrong??

Here is another question you can evade....

• Do you think a writer was telling lies or bull when he wrote in a book that his cult leader was the ill begotten son of the maker of the universe and that this ill begotten son was made into a human sacrifice to rid the maker of the universe of a festering grudge he had and that the human sacrifice rose from the dead and then hopped onto a cloud and flew up up and awayyyyyyyyy to outer space to sit on a sequined throne????

 

[Thermal]

Wow... what astonishingly dexterous evasive tactics used in the above post

Evasion noted. Or as you would grammatically phrase it: "do you evade it? Yes, I do."

...to avoid answering the very simple questions...

Answered repeatedly.

1. Do the Buybull and the New Tall tales contain lies and bull... or not?

No, I do not believe so.

2. Is there a hiding god or not?

How dafuq would I know?

Nevertheless I can still glean that your answer to #1 is a definite "NO".... you are wrong!!!

Wrong again.

For #2, I can glean that you think there is a god and he is not hiding... am I wrong??

Yes, you are wrong.

Here is another question you can evade....

• Do you think a writer was telling lies or bull when he wrote in a book that his cult leader was the ill begotten son of the maker of the universe and that this ill begotten son was made into a human sacrifice to rid the maker of the universe of a festering grudge he had and that the human sacrifice rose from the dead and then hopped onto a cloud and flew up up and awayyyyyyyyy to outer space to sit on a sequined throne????

No.

Anything else, or are we done here?

 

[Leumas]

...
Here is another question you can evade....

• Do you think a writer was telling lies or bull when he wrote in a book that his cult leader was the ill begotten son of the maker of the universe and that this ill begotten son was made into a human sacrifice to rid the maker of the universe of a festering grudge he had and that the human sacrifice rose from the dead and then hopped onto a cloud and flew up up and awayyyyyyyyy to outer space to sit on a sequined throne????

No.

Thanks for that very straightforward answer....

Anything else, or are we done here?

Yes... I am done ... QED!!!

 

[Thermal]

Thanks for that very straightforward answer....


Yes... I am done ... QED!!!

Outstanding. Of course, nothing has been resolved. You got your direct answers, over and over and over, but the core issue remains: you quite literally don't understand your own questions. So I'm sure you will go on to comically misinterpret them again in the future. We'll have a good laugh at your expense then.

Vaya con dios!

 

[Leumas]

... We'll have a good laugh at your expense then.

QED!!!

 

[Steve]

Thanks for that very straightforward answer....






Yes... I am done ... QED!!!

Unfortunately.......

 

[acbytesla]

I guess that could be done but I think theories are more about making predictions than hypotheses? The next step for me is to confirm that the results can be confirmed, one way of which is to publish in peer reviewed publications for others to confirm the results.

GDon doesn’t seem to understand what a scientific theory is and the process of creating one.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

The scientific method is an empirical method that involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

"God did it," isn't a scientific theory. It's hardly a hypothesis. What it is, is a superstition.