Is materialism a real theory? Do most atheist believe in it?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
RE: "And suddenly you are a biologist."
This is the absolute best response I have ever heard from Breezy. ROFLMAO A classic "Kettle calling the pot 'black.'" The wild man of inane assertions himself calling someone out on stating the obvious. "You go girl!" I'm gonna take a screen shot of this and put it on my bathroom wall just so I can laugh my ass off the next time I take a dump.
We have different tastes in humor. I find it funny to hide behind not being a biologist to avoid my threads on nervous systems, but suddenly knowing how many neuron's there are in an ant's nervous system in another.
One is a quick google search and one requires degrees in entomology and related scientific fields, such as biology to be qualified to answer. I will leave it to you to guess which is which.
You don't need a degree to think, nor qualifications to discuss. However, thinking does take time and energy, so I understand if Cyber doesn't want to invest those into reading my citations or looking up pertinent information.
What I don't respect is her dragging down discussions on account of that.
But you gotta understand that Bweezys ickle feelings get hurt when his genius is not universally acclaimed and accepted , especially by a mere woman ( who after all should NOT be giving instruction).
He will get over it and be back to his misogynist, homophobic creationist la la land soon enough. The land where every mirror reflects his genius and handsome visage, and, like Hogwarts , animated portraits of long dead professors exclaim in orgasmic pleasure over the content of his latest paper.
Winner of multiple Nobel prizes and universally loved by all, Breezy is our new fuehrer and leader of the faithful unto heaven.
You are a STUDENT, Breezy, stop giving yourself airs and graces.
I merely defend myself when my discussions are dismissed. When someone says I'm not qualified, and therefore not allowed, to speak on these subjects, I thinks it's important to remind them that I'm more qualified to speak than they are.
In contrast to this dismissive nature, I've always maintained that if people have brains then they can use them, and again, degrees and accomplishments are not necessary.
People here want me to win a nobel prize before I open my mouth. And I just want them to demonstrate they are thinking when they open theirs. Conjectures and refutations, that's all I want from the members of this forum.
John, you wrote, “I thinks it's important to remind them that I'm more qualified to speak than they are.”
Is that what you were saying to me?
"People here want me to win a nobel prize before I open my mouth"
No they don't. What any rational being wants is you to evidence your claims, and be up front about your suppositions.
You evidence neither and then claim intellectual superiority. That is why you are ignored or treated as an immature intellect.
I'm one of the few people on this thread that actually makes a claim, and then presents you with the sources upon which it is based. Read the introduction of any science paper and you'll notice a similarity between them and the way I compose my threads.
"Read the introduction of any science paper and you'll notice a similarity between them and the way I compose my threads."
Note the similarity ends with those papers being peer reviewed and subjected to proper scientific scrutiny, and thus scientifically validated, whereas your claims are being presented in an internet chatroom to atheists, that has no scientific validation.
Come on John I tire of repeating such an obvious fact, and you ignoring it, as if you think you are above such mediocrity as proper scientific validation for your claims.
Peer-review is about quality control not validation; in many ways there is more scrutiny of what I'm saying in a debate forum than in the peer-review process. As good old Pinker has pointed out in regards to books:
"A typical journal article is vetted by two or three arbitrarily chosen referees, working anonymously and grudgingly; a popular book is read by tens of thousands of readers who are all too happy to say "Gotcha!" at any lapse of logic or accuracy."
John "Peer-review is about quality control not validation; "
Where did I say it had nothing to do with quality? Peer review is a vital component in validating scientific ideas, why the fuck would you think poor quality ideas are likely to be validated? The salient point you are trying to obfuscate from is that your creationist verbiage isn't even being submitted for peer review, and is not remotely scientifically valid.
I'll quote the sentence from my post again then as you have done what you always do, and dishonestly cherry picked one small part and distorted what I said.
John "Read the introduction of any science paper and you'll notice a similarity between them and the way I compose my threads."
Me "Note the similarity ends with those papers being peer reviewed and subjected to proper scientific scrutiny, and thus scientifically validated, whereas your claims are being presented in an internet chatroom to atheists, that has no scientific validation."
Please note I didn't suggest peer review alone validated scientific ideas, the salient point is that you are claiming you have **VALID"" objections to the scientific fact of species evolution, but only science can validate such ideas, and it has not validated yours, indeed how could it when you haven't shared them with anyone qualified to do so.
Your Pinker comment is hilarious John, but do you really think we'll believe he was claiming he could falsify scientific theories in a chatroom?
I thinks it's important to remind them that I'm more qualified to speak than they are.
And the Religious Absolutist arrogance shows forth…
Its not arrogance, it's confidence. I've put in the work and will continue to put in the work to make sure that statement is always true.
And like all other Religious Absolutists, you are so full of your own bullshit you cannot smell the stench of the diarrhea you spew from your lips.
Arrogant little …
EDIT: P.S. — Breezy Brain, you seriously need to quit confusing your delusion with what you think is confidence.
The work? The work isn't true until science validates it John, can you really believe this doesn't apply to you?
When are you going to be published for disproving evolution?
Whenever I think I've disproved it. Despite the claims of those around you, most of my threads take the form of a question, not an answer.
"Whenever I think I've disproved it. "
You have repeatedly claimed you have valid objections to species evolution John? Are you now saying they are not in fact valid, but just the subjective opinion of a creationist offered to unqualified atheists in a chat room?
This certainly is not the impression you have given in the past.
"People here want me to win a nobel prize before I open my mouth."
It still astonishes me John, that you think such an obvious lie will go unchallenged. Your claim is that you have changed an entire field of science forever, reversing 160 + years pf global scientific research, and that you know better than every scientists in that field, even Darwin himself.
Opening your mouth isn't the issue, it's the lack of thought you put into it that causes the problem John.
"When someone says I'm not qualified, and therefore not allowed, to speak on these subjects, I thinks it's important to remind them that I'm more qualified to speak than they are."
Another lie, no one has said you can't speak about evolution, just that is it risible to claim you know better than every expert globally, when you have zero qualifications and no published or peer reviewed work in this field.
"I've always maintained that if people have brains then they can use them, and again, degrees and accomplishments are not necessary."
Again the dishonesty here is palpable John. An unpublished road sweeper can think about and comment on the theory of relativity, but when they claim they know better than Einstein, and have falsified his work, and all unnoticed, people are entitled to point out that this is risible nonsense.
"Conjectures and refutations, that's all I want from the members of this forum."
Well Job done then, as wild conjecture seems to be your stock in trade, and I utterly refute your claim you have scientifically valid objections to the scientific fact of species evolution, unless of course you get them published and peer reviewed, and they become scientifically valid, then I will accept what science validates, as I always do, since the methods validity is manifest in it's successes. Making grandiose claims in an atheist forum or internet chatroom won't do John.
"People here want me to win a nobel prize before I open my mouth."
Did Breezy Brain actually say this?
He likes to play the victim card, theists love to pretend they are martyrs to their faith. It's sort of a tradition amongst christians.
Breezy Brain: "People here want me to win a nobel prize before I open my mouth."
Thankfully that is something you ain't got. Admittedly, I ain't either. However, I don't want any kind of prize. However, your arrogance is still amazingly funny.
"You are a STUDENT, Breezy, stop giving yourself airs and graces."
He thinks he's falsified evolution, I think "air and graces" is a massive understatement. Cyber must have the patience of Job to put up with his condescending arrogant ad hominem. Or maybe she is quietly laughing at him?
What a load of arrogant old tosh John, you really are priceless.
Breezy - Everyone ignores your threads except those with the propensity to punish themselves. Even when they know stuff. "The ant has a brain and central nervous system with a total of 250,000 neurons." It's not rocket science... Sometimes information is correct, regardless of the messenger. And some times it's just WooWoo.
When you read my threads, there's a clear distinction between those that are hecklers, and those that are thinkers.
Sadly, hecklers usually flood the comments, forcing those that know stuff to retreat.
Ironically you are using empty ad hominem to attack people, by accusing them of posting things that lack substance. Did I mention this was ironic? When someone denies a scientific fact, it isn't heckling to point out how risible it is to post such denials in an atheist chatroom, though I can see why as a creationist, you'd want to pretend that this is the case.
If anyone claims they have *SCIENTIFICALLY valid objections to a scientific fact, like evolution for instance, then it's reasonable to ask why the world of science disagrees, chat rooms don't validate scientific ideas. Not only that but every time you cite sources (presumably scientific?) you are asked if the writers agree with your core denial of species evolution through natural selection, and the silence is deafening.
If you don't like being heckled then don't wear long floppy shoes, a curly purple wig, a round cherry red nose, and claim to be a scientific genius who has paradigm shifting evidence that overturns 160 years of scientifically validated evidence, and falsifies a valid scientific theory, which are clearly based on your religious beliefs, and for some inexplicable reason you're sharing with atheists rather than scientists, in an atheist chatroom, and complaining that those atheist are underwhelmed.
You can't both boast that you are more qualified than everyone here on the topic, while simultaneously ignoring that every expert in the entire field of biology globally, (creationists aside) disagrees with your position.
Your posts do lack substances and relevance, and it is not an ad hominem to point that out. The invitation is always open for you to demonstrate a connection.
It is absolutely an ad hominem fallacy to make such an empty claim as you keep doing, without offering anything relevant or substantive John, as you have done here again. If you answered salient questions, or addressed post content to justify your derogation it wouldn't be of course, but you never do John. You want scientific expertise from people who confess they don't possess it, but wave away people's objections that you have none yourself, and are contradicting all those experts globally who do have it.
Prove me wrong by all means, but you will need to convince the scientific world you have falsified species evolution John, not atheists in a chat room. As I said no amount of ad hominem fallacies will change this.