Science Unspoken Axiom #1: Deities are nonsense

413 posts / 0 new
Last post
sourcecodewizzard's picture
Just a thought...

Just a thought...

least you finally had one. Soon you will be able to chain them together to form concepts. Then arguments.
Keep it up, you will be there in no time!

arakish's picture
@ sourcecodemigraine

@ sourcecodemigraine

Thank you very much. Its nice to receive praise from septic flotsam. Not really.


terraphon's picture
I'm trying to figure out

I'm trying to figure out where these self-replicating, self-healing computers are...

I totally want one!

sourcecodewizzard's picture
classification: socialized

classification: socialized disassociation. Mockery of logic rather than using logic.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sourcecode whatever

@ Sourcecode whatever

Logic proves nothing. Logic is not an answer in itself.

At best logic can provide a pathway to an answer or several possibilities.

Evidence is still needed to demonstrate the solution

When you start with a supposition your conclusion can only be based on that supposition.

So far you have failed to demonstrate a working hypothesis without introducing 'unknowns'.

Back to your gaming desk.

sourcecodewizzard's picture
Can't argue with no logic

Can't argue with no logic like that

dogalmighty's picture
You believe in the

You believe in the supernatural...LOL.

Is it fair to mock someone who is wrong? Is it fair to mock someone who purposely fails at reason? Is it fair to mock someone who suffers self inflicted cognitive dissonance? Is it fair to mock arrogance? Is it fair to mock christians? Hell yes.
However it is unfair to mock someone who is really you are off the hook.

sourcecodewizzard's picture
It's fair to behave any way

It's fair to behave any way you wish. That is kind of the point of this world.
And with your behavior you show everyone who you are.
And we can clearly see who you are.

Sheldon's picture
Logic does support belief in

Logic does not support belief in unevidenced superstition. Your arguments have also included known logical fallacies like argumentum ad ignorantiam, used so commonly by religious apologists it gives new meaning to the phrase common logical fallacy.

The irony as always is palpable, but only if you don't believe in imaginary friends it seems.

sourcecodewizzard's picture
and the metragoogen is

and the metragoogen is connected to the trapodezion

Try addressing some actual points that will show your true intellect.

algebe's picture
@Terraphon: I'm trying to

@Terraphon: I'm trying to figure out where these self-replicating, self-healing computers are...

My first computers were a couple of TRS-80s that I bought in the early 1980s. My wife and I used them for word processing, etc. When they stopped working we'd drop them from varying heights and talk to them severely. And they'd heal themselves!

But although we left them alone together in the office every night, they never produced any offspring. Maybe they were just too floppy.

sourcecodewizzard's picture
Primate gathering in place of

Primate gathering in place of logic. I expected more.

algebe's picture
Sourcecodewizard: Primate

Sourcecodewizard: Primate gathering in place of logic. I expected more.

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the logic you boast about.

Yes, we're primates. Which order do you belong to?

sourcecodewizzard's picture
Logic is in the OP, you have

Logic is in the OP, you have to actually read it.
Then comprehend it.
Then make an actual argument.
Lots of quick wit here but logic, not so much.

algebe's picture

@sourcecodewizard: Logic is in the OP

Lot's of talking and boasting about logic, but actual logic, not at all.

sourcecodewizzard's picture
You have to read the OP.

You have to read the OP.
then understand and comprehend it.
I never said the logic was freely beamed into your head, just that it is there past the unspoken axiom #1 along with the poo throwing that protect it.

Tin-Man's picture
@Source dude Re: "Primate

@Source dude Re: "Primate gathering in place of logic."

Hey, speak for yourself, pal. I'm made from various scrap metal.

terraphon's picture


You should have had a priest come talk to them. That would have sorted them out!

dogalmighty's picture
Bwaaa haaa haaa haaa ha ha ha

Bwaaa haaa haaa haaa ha ha ha haaaaa ha ha...LOL. Intelligent design argument? Bwaaaa haaa ha haaaaaaa ha a haaaa ha ha LMAO.
Ya Ya that's it...a god made our entire universe, and payed particular attention to our solar system, by creating life on our planet earth...
...and then put the andromeda system on a cataclysmic collision course with ours.
Yup, that's some design.
But I imagine god has a plan and works in mysterious ways.
doesn't fuckin exist you moron.

sourcecodewizzard's picture
Another proof of my point.

Another proof of my point. thank you

Cognostic's picture


YOUR TEST SCORES HAVE ARRIVED: "Let the poo flinging begin" Cog's Shovel. (Edited for these comments)


Attach Image/Video?: 

sourcecodewizzard's picture
so much reasoning to deal

so much reasoning to deal with. I feel so unprepared. It's like a reasoning storm.

Randomhero1982's picture
This has to be either

This has to be either ProgrammingGodJordan or hes finally release a prisoner from his dank basement and that individual is now here displaying all the tell tell signs of indoctrination and Stockholm syndrome...

sourcecodewizzard's picture
How Ironic

How Ironic

Calilasseia's picture
Oh dear, another

Oh dear, another supernaturalist has stepped up to the plate, thinking that his vacuous apologetics will "stick it to the stupid atheists".

Start looking for the nearest fallout shelter for your apologetics. Let's take a look at this shall we?

Many children are brainwashed into believing the irrational idea that the existence of a Creator cannot be proven.

First of all, the mere fact that you've used the word "proven", alone tells me that you never paid attention in the requisite classes. Proof is only applicable in the domain of formal systems, such as those covered by pure mathematics. What supports a postulate about concrete entities in the observable universe is observational data. So on this ground alone, your apologetics fails miserably.

Second, those of us who paid attention in class, know what is required in order to establish that a god type entity is something other than the figment of someone's imagination. Namely, for that entity to provide us with reliable observational data, as cited above. This hasn't happened yet, therefore the question of the existence of such an entity remains unanswered.

Technically this is correct since nothing can ever be proven completely even our own existence.

Pure mathematicians would like to disagree with you here, at least with respect to the theorems in their formal systems.

As for concrete entities such as ourselves, well, we have a habit of providing observational data supporting the postulate that we exist.

But in terms of the spectrum of knowledge, the fact that our world is designed is more certain that the existence of our parents or even our perception of reality.


You, like every other supernaturalist, do not know what is required, in order to convert the "design" assertion into something other than the product of your rectal passage. Let's see if you can work this out from first principles, without any prompting from me, shall we? Here's a hint: "it looks 'designed' to me, therefore it must be" doesn't count.

First, radio static will never produce a valid radio program. Neither will TV noise produce a valid TV program. So how could molecules randomly create working computers? It does not make any sense.

Except that no scientist has ever claimed this. Instead, what scientists working in the requisite fields actually claim, if you bother paying attention to their output, is that testable natural processes were responsible for the origin of the biosphere and its contents. Courtesy of the fact that chemical reactions are not "random", but obey well-defined rules regarding such matters as energy exchanges and bond formation. Indeed, one of the reasons that the requisite scientists look to chemistry for answers to the question of the origin of life, is because life is chemistry writ large. Millions of well-defined chemical reactions are taking place in your body right now, and if some of those reactions stop, then you die.

Also, we need to factor in here, that scientists actually postulate that the origin of life centred around simple protocells, which then acquired additional features over time. How those protocells might have been constructed, and how they might have acquired additional features, is an active field of research.

Furthermore, even though my collection of papers covering the relevant research is incomplete, I still have enough papers in that collection, to know that the hypotheses being proposed are supported by experiment. Which of the 322 papers in that collection would you like me to bring here first?

As for evidence, Earth is filled with working computers that replicate and self-heal using nanotechnology. EVIDENCE.

This isn't evidence for an invisible magic man, it's evidence for a large swathe of testable natural processes. See the above research I've cited for more on this.

Now imagine SETI found a star flickering in repetition. Imagine they recorded the flickers as binary numbers, saved them into a .mpeg file and found that they produced a movie showing the correct location of the star relative to all others along with daily alien life.

A laughable scenario. Because stars don't do this. Just ask any actual practising astronomer. Who will probably give you a nice, in-depth exposition on how nuclear fusion works, among other topics, and in the process of so doing, will inform you that stars don't produce bitstreams of photon data changing at the speed that would be required to collect such data in a reasonable time frame.

Once it was verified that the signal had origins outside of our solar system, 99% of humans would regard this as solid evidence of alien intelligence outside our solar system.

Except that every properly tenured astronomer on the planet will tell you that your fantasy scenario won't happen. Along with detailed reasons for this. Nuclear fusion reactions don't produce laser bitstreams.

Now compare the two: 1) Flickering Light, 2) Planet filled with networked computers. EVIDENCE.

[1] above is a fantasy scenario on your part, and [2] is evidence for testable natural processes, not an invisible magic man from mythology.

Also, anyone who believes that science can explain the origin of life needs to get a science lesson or start producing some EVIDENCE.

Which of those 322 scientific papers do you want me to bring here first?

Notice the word is capitalized indicating it is important.

We know that supernaturalists love their ALL CAPS typing. Doesn't make their fantasies any more risible.

Science fantasy combined with conjecture and wishful thinking have built this magical world of “what if land” where people actually believe that there is some factual, scientific basis to explain how life began

There is. Which of those 322 scientific papers do you want me to bring here first?

when this is not even remotely based on EVIDENCE. It is a faith, pure and simple.

Those 322 scientific papers say you're talking bollocks.

To counter their lack of evidence

Which of those 322 scientific papers do you want me to bring here first, demonstrating that your assertion about "lack of evidence" is horseshit?

science has dubbed the phrase “God of Gaps” thereby 1) glorifying their lack of EVIDENCE

Bollocks. you obviously don't know what the term means.

Basically, what this term refers to, is the fact that every time scientists have yet to provide a detailed answer to a given question, ignorant supernaturalists point to this and immediately exclaim that their fantasy mythological magic man is needed to provide an answer. Except, of course, that when scientists subsequently do provide a detailed answer, one accompanied by a usefully predictive, quantitative theory, the supernaturalist assertion looks absurd. This has happened with electricity, with weather, with disease, and dozens of other observational phenomena, all asserted in the past to require a supernatural "explanation", only for the assertion in this vein to look fatuous once scientists were able to roll up their sleeves and provide a genuine answer.

Pointing to questions scientists haven't yet answered, thinking that they never will, has always resulted in supernaturalists being left with egg on their faces. As long as scientific research continues, supernaturalists will end up with even more egg on their faces.

and 2) drawing attention away from the EVIDENCE of a planet filled with self aware computers.

Poppycock. Which of those 322 scientific papers do you want me to bring here first, demonstrating that your assertion is horseshit?

To anyone using logic it is clear that our reality must have been designed.

Bullshit. This has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with wishful thinking about merely asserted mythological entities. Once again, you don't know what it takes to convert the "design" assertion into a properly supported postulate. Care to derive the requisite requirements from first principles? That's a challenge I know you're going to fail right from the start.

The big problem is trying to figure out the personality of the designer(s).

Poppycock. Until you answer the challenge above, all you have here is hot air.

The Christian version of an omnipotent, totally benevolent designer is tough to reconcile with a lot of the stuff that has happened on Earth. Here is where logic cannot help us but can still guide us.

No it can't because it's made up mythological hooey.

I believe the existence of evil by an omnipotent, totally benevolent creator can be explained by the following Christian principles:

No it can't. Euthypro Dilemma anyone?

1)God knows how to make it all better. When it is over everyone will agree it is worth it.

Pathetic. Tell that to all the children raped by Catholic priests. Oh, and you can start work on providing something other than mere assertions that your magic man exists.

2)We are world builders and being a world builder is a sacred trust.

Yawn. Got anything other than blind assertions to offer here?

3)Hence, this is a proving ground where we prove we can be trusted

Poppycock. Once again, all you have here is blind assertions.

Free will. No stencils. Paint whatever you want but be prepared to face the shame of painting a sinfull life.

Take this preaching and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

Now, your first challenge, is this. Do you know what it takes to convert the "design" assertion into something other than a blind assertion? I'll enjoy seeing you fail on this one, so take your time, only I like my comedy the same way I like my single malt - aged well.

sourcecodewizzard's picture
More social intimidation as a

More social intimidation as a consistent pattern with your type, thank you for proving my point yet again.

But there is some attempt at logic so I will actually respond to that portion.

Do you know what SETI is?
Do you know what they are doing?

They are looking for a signal from aliens.

It is a proof by contradiction.
A simple and accurate proof designed so that even people who are not too bright can understand it.
Your response indicates that you clearly do not grasp the concept, re-read.

Calilasseia's picture
Except that if you bothered

Except that if you bothered to read my post properly, you would have learned that your pseudo-argument is precisely that, because it involves a physically unreal situation.

Oh, by the way, that challenge I issued ... do you know what is required, to convert the "design" assertion into something other than a mere assertion? I'm still waiting to see you try (and almost inevitably fail) to address this.

sourcecodewizzard's picture
physically unreal????

physically unreal????

stars flicker....Real

if the flicker is of a specific type then everyone infers intelligent causation originating outside our solar system.

How is that unreal?

Stick with the point here instead of changing topics as you people always do.

This is a carefully constructed, very simple version of the watchmakers argument that eliminates the dirty details that your kind likes to focus on. It is unambiguous, factually correct and gets to the point immediately.
It shows that your kind commits contradiction because of the unspoken axiom in the OP that all of you know is true.

you have nothing but social intimidation as usual
CASE CLOSED pending actual reasoning

Calilasseia's picture
Bollocks. The reason that

Bollocks. The reason that stars appear to flicker when viewed from the surface of Earth, is because the light arriving from those stars is subject to atmospheric refraction, which changes dynamically with air movements. Which is why astronomers were queueing up to have telescopes launched into space, where the atmospheric refraction phenomenon does not interfere with the reception of starlight, and the stars, instead of flickering, maintain a constant apparent luminosity over the short term.

Plus, SETI isn't checking for signals in the visible spectrum, because radio frequency signals have much better penetrating power through the atmosphere. They're not subject to the same magnitude of refraction, because their wavelengths are far larger than the distances between air molecules. Light, on the other hand, has wavelengths that are comparable to the mean free path of air molecules, and is subject to refractive disturbance as it passes through the atmosphere for this reason. Look up Rayleigh scattering for an example of the kind of phenomenon that affects light passing through the atmosphere from space.

Your psuedo-argument relies upon physically unreal situations to prop it up, an ignorance of basic physics, and a large helping of duplicitous stonewalling. You have nothing but bullshit. CASE CLOSED.

Oh, by the way, once again, do you know what it takes to convert the "design" assertion you're peddling here, into something other than the product of your rectal passage? Still waiting to see you even acknowledge the existence of this challenge, let alone try to address it. Which I know in advance you can't. Go on, prove me wrong if you think you're intellectually hard enough.

sourcecodewizzard's picture
your response indicates you

your response indicates you are not understanding the argument, nor the reasoning.

I started a thread to explain it to the dude with the red eyeballs.
If you are interested it the step by step you can read that and then respond to the actual argument.

What you wrote is killing strawmen but I looks like it is because do not understand the argument.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.