317 posts / 0 new
Last post
ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I don't know if I've ever

I don't know if I've ever made a Creationist argument.

chimp3's picture
Just the stupid ones : http:/
Sheldon's picture
"I don't know if I've ever

"I don't know if I've ever made a Creationist argument."

I'm not convinced there are any. It's blind faith in an ancient superstitious myth, what arguments support it?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Well you certainly have. But

Breezy: I don't know if I've ever made a Creationist argument.

Well you certainly have. But you'll just say they aren't Creationist arguments or just edit them away so I guess you will always be right John, even when you contradict yourself.

Sheldon's picture
"John: Creationist arguments

"John: Creationist arguments are never provided by the nonreligious. They have no basis outside of religion. Asking us to ignore your religious bias is asking to ignore the elephant in the room."

Well quite, though of course they have no basis in religion either, it's just subjective belief based on wishful thinking. The absolute dearth of any evince for the claims could not be more clearly illustrated than in the latest fad of religious apologists in using propaganda lies to cherry pick and attack only those scientific facts that refute part of their religious beliefs. **Please not Breezy's efforts in this fashion on here, and his ignoring the fact this is a debate room that claims no scientific expertise. why then does he challenge the fact of evolution with atheists, and not with scientists if his objections are scientific and not religious?

Cognostic's picture
You have already shown that

You have already shown that you know nothing at all about consciousness. Why would anyone talk with you about it? You assert "I present my responses in whatever way I think they are most likely to be received and agreed upon." But all you do is make wild assertions as if they are statements of fact. You are one of the most disjointed posters on the site/

There are already fallacies allocated to debunking Christian apologetic positions. Lumping them all together and calling them a "Straw God Fallacy" is just moronic. Do it and no one will actually understand which fallacy you are referring to. Logical fallacies already have names. If you are going to create a new one you must clearly define it. "When I rebut Christian arguments." is not a definition. There are a million fallacious Christian arguments. You are just talking out your butt again.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I would hope I don't know

I would hope I don't know much about consciousness, that's one of the final frontiers of brain science. But how come you know so much about it?

fishy1's picture
I'll bite.

I'll bite.

First off, you don't have to prove God exists with me. I know better.

You want to talk about Consciousness ? OK, it's one and the same as a soul. When the chemicals quit reacting, it's all over. Pretty simple concept really.

Morality is a fun one, and very easy to explain. Humans evolved to be basically good. 50,000 years ago, the bad apples got kicked out in the cold, on their own, which not only greatly decreased their odds of survival, but also pretty much eliminated any chance of passing on their "bad genes".

What do you want to discuss about evolution ? Personally I find the whole concept very easy to understand, and quite believable, unlike some fairy tale biblical crap.

LucyAustralopithecus's picture
john, i am always happy to

john, i am always happy to debate theists such as yourself in these topics.
and although many of you are very well spoken, you don't have all the knowledge and data at hand.
i say this with respect, rather then simply saying you ignore facts and evidence.

whenever pressed for evidence to support claims, theists tend to be very light on the ground with this,
and when pressed, the circular arguments begin after the argument boils down to a god of the gaps.

which is a poor argument and a fallacious one, an argument from incredulity, i don't understand or cannot explain, therefore god.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
You're never as great as they

You're never as great as they say you are, and you're never as bad as they say you are.

This may just reinforce my apparent cockiness lol, but I do think everyone should adopt the above ideology. This is the internet. Don't be so invested into it. Don't take things so personally. If you feel frustrated or angry take a pause, go for a walk, gather your thoughts, then come back and rejoin the discussion.

I've personally stayed silent when people praise and applaud me on the forum; and likewise I'm indifferent when people denounce and censure me in the forum. I'm just here for discussions. Don't turn AR into YouTube comments lol.

Sheldon's picture
" I'm just here for

" I'm just here for discussions. "

And irony apparently, do you think it was *OBJECTIVELY* moral when god tortured a newborn baby to death over 7 days in the bible, because he was angered it was conceived in an adulterous affair?

Edit, I missed the word objective out, added now,

CyberLN's picture
John, you wrote, “ I'm

John, you wrote, “ I'm indifferent when people denounce and censure me in the forum.”

I do not believe that.

Sheldon's picture
I'm inclined to agree. Not

I'm inclined to agree. Not that long ago he spent several pages whining about people hitting the disagree button on his posts when he felt he didn't 'deserve' it. Nothing he posted sounded like he was indifferent to it.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Well, I appreciate the

Well, I appreciate the attempt to give me a heart lol. So I'm not going to object to either of these comments.

Sheldon's picture
"Well, I appreciate the

"Well, I appreciate the attempt to give me a heart lol. So I'm not going to object to either of these comments."

The fact you took the time to tell everyone doesn't strike me as indifference. Now you're here anyway, do you think it was *OBJECTIVELY* moral when god tortured a newborn baby to death over 7 days in the bible, because he was angered it was conceived in an adulterous affair?

fishy1's picture
Actually John, I think that's

Actually John, I think that's great advice. And I'm not even concerned with who you may have pissed off before me :) lol

And if you even start to get under my skin, I'm more likely to just ignore you, than reply with some big shi+ talking rant.

Kataclismic's picture
I don't understand your

I don't understand your arguments John, I think you just crave attention. Now I will go deprive myself of something to punish myself for giving it to you. We really should give you a lot less of it though.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I crave the right type of

I crave the right type of attention. So I would appreciate receiving a lot less of the wrong type of attention.

Kataclismic's picture
And you don't give details

And you don't give details about what you believe in order to do that. You tend to skate around other's beliefs and when you are accused of having them you run away saying that's not what YOU believe. If you actually set down your beliefs and why you believe them then we would have a source to argue with, but while you continue to distract from your beliefs it's a bit like,

"What do I do if I stuck a crucifix up my butt and can't get it out? I'm asking for a friend."

Then we say, "Don't yank on it!", and you say, "I can't, it's not in MY butt!"

So we should be helping your imaginary friend since you are pointless to the conversation.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I don't give those details

I don't give those details because they are irrelevant to the posts I make. For example: If I argue that abortion is wrong, and I give you my reasons why I think its wrong, don't ignore those reasons and attack my religious beliefs, as if by doing so you've attacked my position on abortion. That's a clear straw man. I could have easily argued that abortion is right, and do so because I believe the soul doesn't enter the body until its out of the womb. What would people do in that scenario? Say that abortion isn't right, because my beliefs are wrong?

There is a logical mandate to address the arguments that are on the table. It is a fallacy to try to go beyond them,

Kataclismic's picture
But to argue abortion is

But to argue abortion is wrong would be explaining why YOU THINK abortion is wrong. It's an opinion piece. Without actually giving the source of that view, we have nothing to argue with except that you seem to believe in some sky-daddy. So guess what? He doesn't exist. And if you think abortion is wrong then good for you.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
But I do give you the source

But I do give you the source of that view, namely, that I think there is continuity between an embryo and a child, that they both refer to the same human entity, and that human entities deserve to be protected.

I don't need you to go beyond that. In fact, I think religion is right precisely because I don't need religion in order to argue any of these points. I think that most of what religion teaches should be self-evident and discoverable in nature. So at no point do I need you to agree that sky-daddy exists.

Which is why I consider it a straw man for people to argue that he doesn't exist, as a rebuttal to my every argument.

Kataclismic's picture
That's all well and good John

That's all well and good John, and I commend you for that. I have the opinion that you and I will never have to face that decision and therefore how we view it is of the least importance. You just prioritise your views a bit differently.

Perhaps you should take those views down to City Hall where they are better equipped to deal with them, we're only interested in what you can prove here.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
That decision being...

That decision being... getting an abortion lol?

I don't know if you meant that in a biological sense (we're not women) or in a social sense (getting someone pregnant we don't want to). But I'm of the opinion that the only thing standing between me and any wrongful act, is simply lack of opportunity. Where others have fallen today, is where I might fall tomorrow.

LogicFTW's picture
A wrongful act is in the eye

A wrongful act is in the eye of the beholder doing the act and any victim(s).

If you are very high on mind altering drugs and not yourself does that create new opportunity? How suddenly and temporarily mentally incapacitated? Is it still wrong? A fair amount of people coming out of anesthesia, (usually from surgery,) can be violent towards nurses and staff as they recover from the effects of anesthesia. They may, given the opportunity punch a nearby staff member that is simply trying to help them but the fogged mind is in a state of panic and is in a reptilian fight or flight state. Is punching that staff member a wrongful act?

That said, it seems to be a scary place that you feel any wrongful act (to you,) that the only thing that stops you is lack of opportunity. You would murder someone if you were sure you could get away with it in every way? What if you liked the person? I doubt you would murder that person simply because you had the opportunity.

Perhaps you meant any wrongful act, (to you,) that would be advantageous to you in some way?

Say if: you found a body in the middle of a vast flat desert, no one is around, there is no possible surveillance, and the body has a wallet stuffed with 100 dollar bills. The opportunity is there to grab the cash, and you can anonymously call in the location of the body to the police later, depriving any surviving heirs the cash in the wallet. Quite the opportunity to enrich yourself with no repercussion to yourself. You know it is wrong, but hey opportunity strikes, and you are the type of person that would carry no guilt from the act of depriving the rightful heirs of money that should go to them.

Would that would be an example of doing a wrongful act that has near perfect opportunity?

Kataclismic's picture
Yes, us not being women was

Yes, us not being women was exactly the point I was making, thank you for noticing. I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say though. If you claim that the only reason you don't commit "wrongful acts" is that you don't have the opportunity then I hope you spend your days chained to a chair in a dark room because most of us have more self-discipline than that.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Well, I agree. When you study

Well, I agree. When you study human behavior you're left wondering why we haven't already chained everyone to a chair by now.

But hey, if you think you have self-discipline good for you. Here's a tip: always have a cookie in hand. Its been shown that self-discipline correlates with glucose levels.

David Killens's picture
Get stuffed. My wife has

Get stuffed. My wife has three university degrees in psychology. Two Masters and a PhD. During our 35+ years of marriage I have learned a heck of a lot about psychology.

Let me make this very clear. You should be chained to a chair for the rest of your life, but the vast majority of people do not require such measures.

Every time I read your posts I am always tempted to turn her loose on you, let her read your posts and build a psych profile on you. But I do not need her expertise, I know what you are. And are not.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
By all means let her join the

By all means let her join the conversation. I would definitely love hearing from someone that knows what they're talking about.

I would be particularly interested to hear her thoughts on my Transgender Post.

Kataclismic's picture
As a diabetic requiring

As a diabetic requiring multiple injections per day to survive, I know a little something about self-discipline, John. Most importantly, that it doesn't come cheap.

To anyone.


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.