Why do sceptics and atheists post on this and other (confess, witness)

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

Attacking? I am not attacking. Because I disagree with you I am attacking? the victim card eh.

me, you, and a biologist? You don't want that harry. On a forum you get to push less valid stances. Out in the real, with me, you, and a biologist, it won't end the same way.

Take it up with professor Martin.

July 11, 2016 issue of Current Biology

https://www.cell.com/current-biology...0468-7?rss=yes

"What’s the single most important thing that you have come to realize about nature? Life is an exergonic chemical reaction. It’s the energy releasing redox reaction at the core of metabolism that makes life run, and throughout all of life’s history it is one and the same reaction that has been running in uninterrupted continuity from life’s onset. Everything else is secondary, manifestations of what is possible when the energy is harnessed to make genes that pass the torch."

Go on, tell the PhD he does not understand. And tell him about your stick argument too.

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

the claim that we are in a system of "life" is more valid than the claim we are not in a system of life.

And? What has this to do with anything I have written?

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

If you have a biologist friend, bring them to me because you are not equipped. you stick to your little history lessons. I stick to my area of expertise.

W = fD, remember?

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

I am saying you are misusing the terms. and you are.

Then report me.

And then answer tho OP, why do YOU post on forums like this.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by 4dognight

I believe the question of the OP included "skeptics? as well as atheist. Understand?

Yes, I understand that. It also included atheists, and I responded as a skeptical atheist.

Or are you trying to redefine a skeptic as someone who is anti-Christian? Because there are books you can buy that tell you what words actually mean. You can even use the internet.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Take it up with professor Martin.

July 11, 2016 issue of Current Biology

https://www.cell.com/current-biology...0468-7?rss=yes

"What’s the single most important thing that you have come to realize about nature? Life is an exergonic chemical reaction. It’s the energy releasing redox reaction at the core of metabolism that makes life run, and throughout all of life’s history it is one and the same reaction that has been running in uninterrupted continuity from life’s onset. Everything else is secondary, manifestations of what is possible when the energy is harnessed to make genes that pass the torch."

Go on, tell the PhD he does not understand. And tell him about your stick argument too.



And? What has this to do with anything I have written?



W = fD, remember?



Then report me.

And then answer tho OP, why do YOU post on forums like this.

lmao "then report me." ... that's what you bring harry? ... lightweight.

I am going to call you the running man harry harry. you avoid, change, and misuse anything you can to avoid the direct questions.

The system we are in is better described as "life". You bring you little friend to me. Because if he is saying the biosphere does not consist of life I will have a serous problem with his wackery.

is he even real?

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Yes, I understand that. It also included atheists, and I responded as a skeptical atheist.

Or are you trying to redefine a skeptic as someone who is anti-Christian? Because there are books you can buy that tell you what words actually mean. You can even use the internet.

skeptical atheist ... an atheist that is not sure that "deny everything so it can't be used as a springboard." is the best option?

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

So it would be that specific doctrine (not religion per se) that presents a potential harm. That's exactly what I've been saying.

I know it is what you have been saying. It is not at all what I have been saying. You appear to want to intentionally confuse me giving an example of what I am saying as being the totality of my approach. Again what I _have_ been saying and will likely continue to say is that claims made without any evidence are much more dangerous and harmful than claims made with evidence. And since religion is specifically in the business of claims made without evidence - while also elevating the importance of those claims by tying them to things like your eternal well being - I find religion to be specifically a source of harm. Not the sole or exclusive source - but a specific source.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

But that brings us right back to my example of saying this band or the other band is the best. That can't ever be solved either.

Well if you want to go around in circles by repeating things I have already dealt with then I am happy to repeat my rebuttals of them. This is _again_ a subjective difference of opinion about a subjective reaction to something. Which is not at all what I have been talking about, even slightly. What I have been talking about is not claims about subjective appreciation of art - but specific truth claims about reality. "The Beatles were better than Elvis" is a claim about subjectivity - "The universe was created by an intelligent being" is a truth claim. Big difference and hence is not as you claim "irreconcilable in the same way". It is irreconcilable in a very different way indeed.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Well because evidentialism is dead. Has been for a long while now.

Not even sure what this line is meant to mean.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Oh I'm doing great on this topic! Feeling like a bit of a bully, however. I mean, anti-theists have never been able to justify their position. And it really doesn't take someone of my skills to point out their fallacies.

Yet you have not managed to point out a single fallacy on this thread yet, much less in my posts. Certainly telling yourself how great you think you are reveals something. But likely not what you intended.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Not once did I run away, but I'm sure I did eventually stop responding on plenty of them. When you're not getting anywhere on a topic, it's just good sense to stop wasting time on it. Determining who's right and wrong isn't a matter of seeing who gets the last word

"Not running away just running away" then. As expected - no intention or ability to return to the topics despite claiming to be better at defending them now than you were then. Just like I said. It is so easy to claim to have improved or have better arguments now. Especially if you simply avoid any opportunity to demonstrate the claim or put it to any kind of test.

Sure I should be just put into the Guinness book of records for being the fastest man alive. I have been getting faster and faster. SO good am I in fact I do not need to test this or demonstrate it. Just stick me in the book anyway. I am about - 3 seconds faster than the current record.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Which might explain why when I said "You can define it any way you like", people stalled and tasked me with defining it

The only person who should be defining something like "god" is the one claiming that "god" exists. It is interesting how many people want to claim one exists and then demands of others that they define it or say what the evidence should be for it. In fact we have one theists who has pretty much a 90% MO on this forum of simply demanding we tell him what the evidence for god is or has to be.

Since you are in the role of religious apologist on this forum - while claiming to be an atheist - you are more than welcome to define god and similar concepts for the purposes of whatever it is you feel you want to be defending. It is not for anyone else to do this forum you or on your behalf.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I agree that objective morality can exist without a god

Of course it _can_. That does not change the fact that currently no one has shown any evidence that it _does_.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I think this is sad. That we do not believe there's a god doesn't in any way suggest it's irrational to do so.

Thankfully I see few if any people saying that it is irrational to believe in a god just because _we_ do not. That would be a rather arrogant approach to the conversation. Rationality should not be defined by what we believe.

No the word rational means "based on or in accordance with reason or logic". It may be very rational to believe there is a god therefore. To evaluate that, by definition, we need to evaluate the reasoning and logic that was employed. Alas when I ask for it I never get it - usually what I get instead is spectacular linguistic gymnastics explaining away why I did not get it and likely never will.

So thus far the ability to evaluate belief in a god as "rational" is precluded. Through absolutely zero fault of my own. It is all them and apologists such as yourself.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

True. And then others believe "There is no god" for poor reasons too...

And many adopt that position for good reasons too. I already schooled you on the linguistic absolutism of human language. And I see no issue with that - and most people seem to see no issue with it either until extreme pedantry is brought into play by apologists such as yourself. There is nothing in and of itself wrong with the sentence "There is no god" - though I do recall yet another of the many threads you ran away from where (I think it was you anyway) you attacked the idea of telling children there is no monsters too.

However by all means we should unpack the reasoning and position behind it as a sentence that short is useful for basic communication but rarely if ever informs you about the position the person holds. There certainly is absolutely no reason whatsoever being offered to us to think there is a god. And plenty of evidence of a universe operating naturally and entirely without one. So the statement in and of itself - especially in the context of how most human beings seem to talk most of the time - is not a problematic one to anyone but the extreme pedant.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

And the obvious example would be if they've had a religious experience in their own lives which they found convincing enough and perhaps we would to if we had the same experience.

Myself and the one with an entirely Mystical PhD would be an example of this. The user claims to have had religious experience. And has vaguely - without even vague details - name dropped the procedures by which he claims to have had them. And he claims these experiences somehow not just validate religious non-sequitur claims but _specifically_ claims about Jesus and Christianity.

The issue is I have had _all_ the same experiences described - sorry not described as they are not being described just vaguely named. And many more than the user has not named. And I see no rationality taking one from those experiences to those claims.

Which brings us right back to what I just typed in a section above. By the very dictionary definition of what "rational" means - it is impossible to consider their claims "rational" until such time as they actively and clearly show the reasoning and logic that was employed. Alas when you ask them you do not get it. And with the user specifically mentioned here - you in fact get aggressive and hostile responses peppered with insult and invective. Just for asking.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

There are plenty of atheists who simply dismiss theism as belief in a "sky daddy" or "imaginary friend" and are not interested in any reasons, arguments, etc. the theists try to provide.

That is a bit like saying a child is not interested in eating vegetables and when you ask the parent which vegetables they tried to offer the answer is "None". So it is not that the child is not interested in vegetables - but the parent has just assumed they were not so did not actually bother their ass offering any.

It is a complete lie that theists and apologists like yourself try on threads like this time and time again - to excuse the lack of evidence reasons and arguments by pretending we just are "not interested" in them at all.

Until such time as they _actually provide some_ they have no basis upon which to presume to tell us what we are or are not interested in.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

But I agree that stories and myths are not proof of anything. A person should have better reasons for believing something than that.

Sure but look up to what I just said about "experiences" above. And the experiences I have had through intense medication and meditation. The fact is that the "belief" you mentioned being rationally based off such experience _is_ nothing but the stories we tell ourselves about those experiences.

So in one breath you call belief based on those experiences rational. Then in the next breath you basically agree with _exactly_ the reasons we think it is not at all.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The simple fact is that all life and everything else that exists is ample prima facie evidence of God (the source of it all).

But that is a dilute non-definition of the word. You are just using the word "god" as a placeholder for something we _do not know_ and _do not have an explanation for_. You are redefining the word to suit yourself by taking a complete nothing and assigning the word "god" to that nothing so it itself means nothing and - hence - everything you want it to later when you create complete nonsense off the back of that word.

If you want to say "We do not know how the universe came to be and I want to call that missing explanation with the word god" then so be it. But you do not and never have stopped there. You go on _every time_ to use that word you smuggled in to justify the most complete nonsense such as this "god" having turned itself into the man Jesus to visit us - or that consciousness survives death - or that this "god" morally judges us after death.

This is your attempt to have your cake and eat it too. To define "god" in the most nebulous and substance devoid way possible so you never have to defend it - but yet make any claims you want off the back of it latter.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

That everything exists and we don't know the source of it is both fact and an expression of ignorance. What else does "we don't know" denote if not ignorance. Given the eons-long history of human thought on the source of it all as God, that is slightly MORE than a mere opinion.

Slightly more than an opinion. It is a linguistic move and nothing more. "We dont know" is a perfectly accurate and adequate description of the current state of affairs related to that question. One need go no further than that. The move of calling that ignorance "god" is a useless move - and one that muddies the water of clarity surrounding that ignorance and pretends that we know more than we do. And all for no reason or benefit or agenda other than people like yourself wanting to smuggle their specific religion - in your case Christianity - into the conversation while pretending not to.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

That you (and others) attach a negative connotation about your intellect to the word ignorant is not my fault.

Except we don't. You do. You are the one who in thread after thread decries and misrepresents the "ignorance as a default" position. While it is in fact _us_ that acknowledge ignorance for what it is - that it is not at all a bad thing in and of itself - but it is something we still should strive against by working, as many of us scientists do, to dispel it with data and discovery.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

That is why for eons we have attributed it to God. That tradition is obnoxious to atheists so they reject it in preference for the undeniable ignorance about it and then pretend that should be the default for our ignorance despite eons of tradition.

Appeal to tradition is useless. What is obnoxious is claiming to know what we do not - or trying to veil over our ignorance with fancy or nebulous or meaningless words rather than simply accepting it for what it is. You pretend falsely and dishonestly _we_ have negative connotations of the word "ignorant" but it is _you_ and your ilk - not us - that are engaging in linguistic gymnastics to not simply acknowledge it entirely.

It is only you and yours for whom "We don't know" is not enough to say. You have to dress it up and make it look pretty and make it palatable to yourself all the while pretending it is others who are hiding from it.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

lmao "then report me." ... that's what you bring harry? ... lightweight.

So you are not willing to back up your BS?

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

I am going to call you the running man harry harry. you avoid, change, and misuse anything you can to avoid the direct questions.

Yes, your usual BS when I back up my claim (and refute yours). The fact that you need to misrepresent this raises the question in the OP, why do you post here? To post your 'science' in the wrong section?

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

The system we are in is better described as "life".

So you keep asserting while ignoring what an actual PhD said.

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

You bring you little friend to me.

He is not my friend, it was just an interesting article that I had read. But you can probably find his email address and contact him. Or run away. The choice is yours.

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

Because if he is saying the biosphere does not consist of life I will have a serous problem with his wackery.

What? No one is arguing this? What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

is he even real?

No, I went back in time and created ALL of that site myself, AND wrote all the other papers there in 20 minutes, just to pretend someone (who you can verify the existence of yourself) does not exist.

Seriously, is that your response, to pretend an expert who demonstrates you are wrong does not exist?

Not to argue against what he wrote, and I explained, but to pretend I invented him?

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

skeptical atheist ... an atheist that is not sure that "deny everything so it can't be used as a springboard." is the best option?

Boring straw man is boring.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by monumentus

I know it is what you have been saying. It is not at all what I have been saying. You appear to want to intentionally confuse me giving an example of what I am saying as being the totality of my approach. Again what I _have_ been saying and will likely continue to say is that claims made without any evidence are much more dangerous and harmful than claims made with evidence. And since religion is specifically in the business of claims made without evidence - while also elevating the importance of those claims by tying them to things like your eternal well being - I find religion to be specifically a source of harm. Not the sole or exclusive source - but a specific source.



Well if you want to go around in circles by repeating things I have already dealt with then I am happy to repeat my rebuttals of them. This is _again_ a subjective difference of opinion about a subjective reaction to something. Which is not at all what I have been talking about, even slightly. What I have been talking about is not claims about subjective appreciation of art - but specific truth claims about reality. "The Beatles were better than Elvis" is a claim about subjectivity - "The universe was created by an intelligent being" is a truth claim. Big difference and hence is not as you claim "irreconcilable in the same way". It is irreconcilable in a very different way indeed.



Not even sure what this line is meant to mean.



Yet you have not managed to point out a single fallacy on this thread yet, much less in my posts. Certainly telling yourself how great you think you are reveals something. But likely not what you intended.



"Not running away just running away" then. As expected - no intention or ability to return to the topics despite claiming to be better at defending them now than you were then. Just like I said. It is so easy to claim to have improved or have better arguments now. Especially if you simply avoid any opportunity to demonstrate the claim or put it to any kind of test.

Sure I should be just put into the Guinness book of records for being the fastest man alive. I have been getting faster and faster. SO good am I in fact I do not need to test this or demonstrate it. Just stick me in the book anyway. I am about - 3 seconds faster than the current record.



The only person who should be defining something like "god" is the one claiming that "god" exists. It is interesting how many people want to claim one exists and then demands of others that they define it or say what the evidence should be for it. In fact we have one theists who has pretty much a 90% MO on this forum of simply demanding we tell him what the evidence for god is or has to be.

Since you are in the role of religious apologist on this forum - while claiming to be an atheist - you are more than welcome to define god and similar concepts for the purposes of whatever it is you feel you want to be defending. It is not for anyone else to do this forum you or on your behalf.



Of course it _can_. That does not change the fact that currently no one has shown any evidence that it _does_.



Thankfully I see few if any people saying that it is irrational to believe in a god just because _we_ do not. That would be a rather arrogant approach to the conversation. Rationality should not be defined by what we believe.

No the word rational means "based on or in accordance with reason or logic". It may be very rational to believe there is a god therefore. To evaluate that, by definition, we need to evaluate the reasoning and logic that was employed. Alas when I ask for it I never get it - usually what I get instead is spectacular linguistic gymnastics explaining away why I did not get it and likely never will.

So thus far the ability to evaluate belief in a god as "rational" is precluded. Through absolutely zero fault of my own. It is all them and apologists such as yourself.



And many adopt that position for good reasons too. I already schooled you on the linguistic absolutism of human language. And I see no issue with that - and most people seem to see no issue with it either until extreme pedantry is brought into play by apologists such as yourself. There is nothing in and of itself wrong with the sentence "There is no god" - though I do recall yet another of the many threads you ran away from where (I think it was you anyway) you attacked the idea of telling children there is no monsters too.

However by all means we should unpack the reasoning and position behind it as a sentence that short is useful for basic communication but rarely if ever informs you about the position the person holds. There certainly is absolutely no reason whatsoever being offered to us to think there is a god. And plenty of evidence of a universe operating naturally and entirely without one. So the statement in and of itself - especially in the context of how most human beings seem to talk most of the time - is not a problematic one to anyone but the extreme pedant.



Myself and the one with an entirely Mystical PhD would be an example of this. The user claims to have had religious experience. And has vaguely - without even vague details - name dropped the procedures by which he claims to have had them. And he claims these experiences somehow not just validate religious non-sequitur claims but _specifically_ claims about Jesus and Christianity.

The issue is I have had _all_ the same experiences described - sorry not described as they are not being described just vaguely named. And many more than the user has not named. And I see no rationality taking one from those experiences to those claims.

Which brings us right back to what I just typed in a section above. By the very dictionary definition of what "rational" means - it is impossible to consider their claims "rational" until such time as they actively and clearly show the reasoning and logic that was employed. Alas when you ask them you do not get it. And with the user specifically mentioned here - you in fact get aggressive and hostile responses peppered with insult and invective. Just for asking.



That is a bit like saying a child is not interested in eating vegetables and when you ask the parent which vegetables they tried to offer the answer is "None". So it is not that the child is not interested in vegetables - but the parent has just assumed they were not so did not actually bother their ass offering any.

It is a complete lie that theists and apologists like yourself try on threads like this time and time again - to excuse the lack of evidence reasons and arguments by pretending we just are "not interested" in them at all.

Until such time as they _actually provide some_ they have no basis upon which to presume to tell us what we are or are not interested in.



Sure but look up to what I just said about "experiences" above. And the experiences I have had through intense medication and meditation. The fact is that the "belief" you mentioned being rationally based off such experience _is_ nothing but the stories we tell ourselves about those experiences.

So in one breath you call belief based on those experiences rational. Then in the next breath you basically agree with _exactly_ the reasons we think it is not at all.

You are talking to a William Craig Lane clone (or possibly the man himself).

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Boring straw man is boring.

I put him on ignore once. I may have to do it again. Nonsense impervious to reason becomes a sheer waste of time.