See someone try to defend creationism honestly

[dotoree]

I was promised a discussion with Aronra. In a debate, have you ever seen one side show the other side all their evidence and reasoning before the debate starts? I haven't. It wouldn't be very fair would it. And esp. in this situation where I'm at quite unfair odds...I'm not going to do it right now. But, if Aronra is unable or unwilling to do what he promised, then I'll consider someone else in a couple days. You need to get on Aronra's case, not mine. He's the one who invited me here to dialogue, have a public discussion with HIM. I've asked to start a deebate. He's said he's willing to debate. I don't have power to create a debate here. I think he does. So get on HIS case, not mine. I haven't prepared in depth to debate Aronra specifically. But, I've been doing this for ~20 years and based on what I've seen so far, he makes the same mistakes and arguments that almost all other atheists make. There might be a few twists, which will be interesting...we'll see.

But, he's never met a creationist like me...as evidence by my very first evidence being on the health topic . I've already shown 3 things and the health one alone gives tremendous benefits that would easily win the Nobel prize by any objective standard if it was a person living alive today who found them and the ted.com site doesn't go into detail on that, but I will in our debate. If he doesn't respond with a sentence or so in a few days about a real debate being started, then maybe you should choose another of the best atheists here to get in a debate. But, it was with Aronra that I was supposed to have a discussion and it's not really keeping the promise to change that. But, if he's having some emergency now and unable to keep that commitment, maybe that could be understandable. I'm fine with posting once or twice a week..that would be preferable for me since I have 100s of papers to grade at present.

Bryan

 

[dotoree]

Slight distinction to be drawn there, but an important one. The blackness of a black person is physical, not cultural.

Doesn't matter. I was born SDA. While physical and worldview and cultural are different, ridicule isn't done only because of physical reasons. And my wife has experienced prejudice quite a few times because she married a foreigner as have I as a minority living here in Korea. In several ways I've been extremely frustrated since legally I'm a 2nd class citizen here (and a friend of my friend found out that legally, foreigners here are considered slaves actually..in a case that's gone to the supreme court and is now in the UN I believe). I can give you several examples of that. The people in many cases have been great and incredible many times, but all cultures have some jerks in them and criminals, etc....but in legal issues and government issues there's a lot of 2nd class citizen stuff I have to meet and it's frustrating. I won't say it's the same as being black...but the principle is very similar. I also know what it means to be ridiculed for having a minority view ruthlessly. Just see some of the posts here for examples of that from certain people. But, I've grown used to it and pity those who do it since they dishonor the legacy of all scientists including Darwin and they do it out of ignorance and being victims of a system that has withheld information from them.
--
Another important distinction, of course, is that magic is a perfect description of miracles, since miracles are a suspension of physical laws, unless you can actually provide the natural mechanism by which your celestial peeping-tom actually delivered those miracles, of course, in which case they weren't miracles and he isn't god.[/quote]
--
ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Magic is regarding deceit, illusions, sleight of hand, etc. MIRACLES ARE a suspension of physical laws or a higher intelligence being knowing how to work beyond them..even some scientists have done that...but we don't say they are doing magic...TESLA for instance. Even airplanes conquer the law of gravity. Higher intelligence is NEVER called magic. And your peeping tom is also a derogatory insult. I have plenty of derogatory things I could say about atheists if I wanted to. I have tried hard to resist that temptation most of the time and let you define what your view is without using any immature epithets and misrepresentations. I gave 1 single example of what I could say in the hypothetical definition of atheist in my long post to Aronra. Don't imagine that that's the only thing I could say. Far from it. But ridicule just shows that you are immature and don't know how to engage in rational debate and aren't open minded and usually makes people too proud to follow genuine science and knowledge. So, I try hard to resist the temptation. I've said several things things in commendation of some atheists, including a few here. It's base immaturity to label everyone in a different camp as stupid, ignorant, believing in magic, immoral, dishonest etc. one of the most childish things a person could do. Yet, Aronra did exactly that and about the only thing he's done so far is proven his own dishonesty and his rude immaturity in refusing to allow others to define their own views. I'm astounded at this violation of basic human decency. It's seldom been equaled in my 20 years of debates with atheists. If you see nothing wrong with it, then you have to accept my definition of atheist. PERIOD.
Bryan

 

[Andiferous]

Anyone can request a moderated debate in the debate forum with a reasonable topic and consent of both parties, if a member, and no matter what your name. But only If you mean to take it seriously. Send a message to one of the pink or turquoise names if so, and prepare to follow the debate rules.

 

[ragnarokx297]

--
Out of 6-7 definitions, that on: of, relating to, the supernatural; would be about the only one that could possibly be somewhat close and #2 could be a bit too, but neither conveys what Christianity actually believes in this area even close to fully. Miracle does far better. Magic simply does not esp. since most people have such strong associations with the the other much, much more common definitions including deceit, sleight of hand, etc. The reason atheists want to use this word is because they wish to demean Christianity and associate it with deceit. Due to the popular understanding of this word, the use this word creates a false impression in people's minds of what the creation and Christian view really is and so I will not accept the use of it in reference to Christianity. Further use of it will consistently be labeled as straw manning and intentional misrepresentation. It's similar to calling a black person a nigger.

Your trying to argue that the definition of deceit, sleight of hand, etc. is the much more common definition? I'm sure the supernatural definition is much more common. But instead of playing the more common game, how about taking context into account.
Say the situation is I turn around and see something that wasn't there a second ago and ask how did that get there, a friend replies "magic".
Now do you think what that friend meant to imply (probably sarcastically) was that it got there supernaturally or did he really mean to say that someone probably used deceit, sleight of hand, or some sort of illusion to subtly get it there with the intent of me not knowing?

The whole point of the word magic is that when some phenomena that you seemingly couldn't explain occurs, be it pulling a rabbit out of a hat or whatever, there's two options: that it happened supernaturally so there's no further explanation, or that there's a natural explanation that you didn't think of before that might have even been tailored in a way that you specifically wouldn't think of that explanation. Now when actual people saw these sort of phenomena preformed by other people, because they knew that those people weren't themselves supernatural beings, they assumed the second option. But in the case that the definition that aronra or whoever uses, they specifically mean god using the "magic", and since god is supposedly a supernatural being, you would obviously assume the supernatural explanation.

The problem is that your trying to claim that the definition of magic in a sentence involving the context of a supernatural being is, instead of the definition of supernatural, the definition that is used to describe exactly what non-supernatural limited beings do when trying to claim what their doing (and thus themselves) is supernatural.

But further, the definition your replying to does not use the word "magic", it uses "magically". Magically being just the adjective form turned into the adverb with the same definition. But it turns out that, coincidentally, every single dictionary you look it to will never have the deceit, sleight of hand, illusion type of definition in the adjective definition. Which seems logical as I have never heard anyone use the adjective to mean that in my life.

"The reason atheists want to use this word is because they wish to demean Christianity and associate it with deceit."
I was actually laughing as I read this because I would have thought that you would say that atheists would use the supernatural version of the word to demean it, as that is the only definition they want the word to mean. I just really find it funny that one could come to that conclusion, to me its one of those things that you would expect to have been said sarcastically... I'm pretty sure atheists use it so that, instead of not associating the two, people would treat god creating life as any other explanation that invokes supernatural magic, not actually an explanation at all but instead a mere attribution.

 

[dotoree]

Anyone can request a moderated debate in the debate forum with a reasonable topic and consent of both parties, if a member, and no matter what your name. But only If you mean to take it seriously. Send a message to one of the pink or turquoise names if so, and prepare to follow the debate rules.

I sent a message to Squawk and have repeatedly told Aronra I was interested in that. Wouldn't they count?
Bryan

 

[Andiferous]

Consensus by both parties. No point calling a one party debate.

 

[IBSpify]

ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Magic is regarding deceit, illusions, sleight of hand, etc. MIRACLES ARE a suspension of physical laws or a higher intelligence being knowing how to work beyond them

The problem here is you are using the wrong context of magic from the form we refer to. If we were saying that your god was effectively pulling a David Copperfield you would have a point, but that's not what we mean.

When we refer to miracles as magic we mean magic in the same sense as a wizard from a fantasy novel, or in the same way that a Djinn grants wishes.

This has been explained to you at least once already in this thread, and you have refused to acknowledge that when we say miracles are magic we don't mean that they are illusions or prestidigitation, we mean that he is actually using sorcery because a miracle by it's very definition is something which is supernatural.

 

[dotoree]

Ragnarok,
Would you by any chance be the same Ragnarok that used to play Evony? Just curious.

Magic is almost always connected with magic shows, black hats, rabbits popping out of hats, David Copperfield, wizards, genies, sorcery/witchraft (which are both very seriously condemned in the Bible), etc. I actually like Copperfield type magic and can do a couple simple tricks and went to a couple shows recently. But, this concept which is for SURE the main understanding of the word has absolutely nothing to do with what God does, which is why I MUST reject it. Magicians are using ILLUSIONS that they are creating rabbits and pulling them out of hats, etc. Creationists have the view that God did it for REAL and we have significant evidence for that. There is no comparison possible.

Sheesh you people have extremely thick skulls on this. This is the most basic aspect of any formal debate that you are explicitly violating. The ISSUE here is that I get to determine the definition of MY VIEWS, PERIOD. You don't have a SMIDGEN of a right to do that. You can't use double standards. PERIOD. If you want to define my views in even a WORD, you MUST accept this definition for atheist.

atheism: An irrational pursuit of ignorance. For most of history it was the aggressive denial that gods exist based on the pseudoscience of spontaneous generation and bereft of almost any other intelligent support. It falsely taught that the universe never had a beginning and that magical ethers could animate chemicals into living things and other things that have been subsequently conclusively falsified. But when science started requiring evidence for such positions to be considered rational, it quickly abdicated due to abiogenesis and spontaneous generation being unable to produce even a single cell and moved into a position of absolutely blind faith which even its adherents admit has "NO EVIDENCE" and which ignores mountains of evidence according to normal academic standards. Contrary to its claim of being rational and intelligent, it decides ignore bilions of pieces of very credible evidence. How? It does this almost solely by using logical fallacies and rejecting many types of evidence that are used in academia frequently. If these principles were followed consistently, it would obliterate massive chunks of the knowledge western civilization has gained over millenia. It tries to dupe people into thinking that it can be the default view without a SHRED of evidence to support it in explicit violation of both the scientific method and the foundation of science which tells us to follow EVIDENCE, not APRIORI ASSUMPTIONS. This is one reason why it's main characteristic is a prejudicial pursuit of ignorance. It's proponents intentionally reject all sorts of evidence from many fields based often on emotional reasons. Stunningly, they pursue this destruction of evidence and knowledge in order to pursue these goals:
--death for all humanity and nothing further (which has caused suicidal depression for many).
--injustice will continue forever and most of it can't be rectified.
--our universe will end and all life will cease.
--insulting and denying the very philosophy that founded the science it pretends to love (except when that science points towards religion).
--ignoring the massive evidence that religion increases happiness, reduces crime, extends life by 4-14 years on THIS planet, enriches relationships, saves marriages, saves lives (I just saw a 13 year old girl saved from suicide by a Christian song), has advanced numerous human rights, principles of justice, goals of world peace and feeding all hungry children so they don't die, drastically improved the value of human life, free speech, democracy...and I could go on and on.

Atheism intentionally rejects these and other benefits that derive from religion in favor of a hopeless death wish and loss of all the above benefits and many more in THIS life.


I'm not going to dignify further nonsense in this area with a response other than the above. It's been dealt with. Stop being irrational and immoral unless you are prepared to fully accept the definition above as defining your view. I'll just keep copying and pasting the above again and again whenever you try to define my views immorally.
Bryan

 

[Yfelsung]

We accept that this is your definition of atheism.

You just refuse to accept that your definition is wrong.

I mean, fuck, atheism pre-dates Christianity and yet you seem to be connecting it to spontaneous generation.

The commonly accepted first atheist, Diagoras of Melos, lived 500 years before the invention of the Christ myth.

Also, despite making up around 14% of the population of the US, atheists make up less than 1% of the prison population... so what was that about increased crime?

Not only that, but the states in the US with most church attendance also have the higher crime rates, teen pregnancy rates and divorce rates than the states with the least church attendance.

You can believe atheism is whatever you want, but reality disagrees with you.

Yes, eventually the human race will likely cease to exist and nothing will have mattered... welcome to reality, it's not very pretty but it's just how it is.

 

[dotoree]

Austro,
A) It's very common for people to choose definitions they like in English to the exclusion of others. This is done ALL THE TIME with words that have multiple definitions. I gave you the example of dinner and gay all the time.
B) The colored definition below STILL has nothing to do with God creating life by His intelligent power.

God's creation of life is like a computer engineer designing a computer, setting up the rules it should run by, and using them to make programs, but also being able to set them aside for a bit if he really wants to. God creation is just infinitely grander than any computer designers is. If you call what God does magic, then you'd have to call what every computer engineer does magic as well as what many other scientists do. They wouldn't appreciate that very much and neither do I. You are violating morality in two ways when you do this as well as using logical fallacies, as I've already explained.

Bryan

Austro,
Even those definition would at best be partially accurate, which for all intensive purposes is inaccurate. Can you read it? It says INVOKING the supernatural. That means ASKING the supernatural for something. Creation is the supernatural DOING something, not receiving a request. Please people stop reading superficially.

in,·voke (n-vk)
tr.v. in,·voked, in,·vok,·ing, in,·vokes

1. To call on (a higher power) for assistance, support, or inspiration: "Stretching out her hands she had the air of a Greek woman who invoked a deity" (Ford Madox Ford).
2. To appeal to or cite in support or justification.
3. To call for earnestly; solicit: invoked the help of a passing motorist.
4. To summon with incantations; conjure.
5. To resort to; use or apply: "Shamelessly, he invokes coincidence to achieve ironic effect"
6. Computer Science To activate or start (a program, for example).

Please stop cherry picking definitions because the ones you don't like undermine your claims

 

[ExeFBM]

From all your talk of double standards, I'm surprised that you're refusing to let Aronra define his use of the word 'magic'. You know he's not implying that the universe is an illusion, or that it was formed from trickery (I mean who would have been around to trick?). Why do you get to define what he means by magic? Please decide if you're going to allow each side to clarify their meanings, or you're going to go with colloquial definitions, and stick with it instead of changing what you deem to be fair depending on how it suits your arguments.

 

[IBSpify]

The ISSUE here is that I get to determine the definition of MY VIEWS, PERIOD.

Nobody is denying you the right to define your views, however you do not get to define which definition of a word we're using when we use the word. When we say magic we do not mean any of the definitions which refer to illusions such as those performed by magicians. When we refer to magic we're speaking of a giant blue Robin Williams turning into a Llama and doing a song and dance, or Elizabeth Montgomery wiggles her nose and Dick York turns into Dick Sargent.

You acknowledge that this definition exists, and that the word magic does in fact carry that meaning, I fail to see how supernatural entity breathing life into a lump of clay can be viewed as anything but a magical event. thus by it's very definition it would be magic.

 

[Inferno]

The ISSUE here is that I get to determine the definition of MY VIEWS, PERIOD.

Bryan, may I point you back to this post here?
It explains the problem you fail to grasp. Well at least I hope that it explains it adequately.

 

[australopithecus]

Austro,
A) It's very common for people to choose definitions they like in English to the exclusion of others. This is done ALL THE TIME with words that have multiple definitions. I gave you the example of dinner and gay all the time

Yeah, people may do it all the time but's dishonest. The word magic has multiple definitions and one of those definitions accuately describes creationism. That you don't like that definition and chose to cherry pick another in order to dismiss the link between the supernatural and magic is your problem. The defintion stands.

Austro,
B) The colored definition below STILL has nothing to do with God creating life by His intelligent power.

Then you should stop teaching English now. To invoke the supernatural as an argument is to invoke magic. It doesn't matter if God is intelligent or powerful, it still falls under the definitions of both magic and the supernatural. If you have an issue with this take it up with the dictionary.

Austro,
God's creation of life is like a computer engineer designing a computer, setting up the rules it should run by, and using them to make programs, but also being able to set them aside for a bit if he really wants to. God creation is just infinitely grander than any computer designers is.

Unprovable nonsense but whatever, I'll allow it.

Austro,
If you call what God does magic, then you'd have to call what every computer engineer does magic as well as what many other scientists do.

Er, no. You clearly didn't read the definitions I posted did you?

1. Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural: "stubborn unlaid ghost/That breaks his magic chains at curfew time"
2. Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.

Engineers or scientists don't invokve the supernatural, they don't produce unaccountable effects because by virtue of the fact someone has done them they are accountable. I grant you certain things my be baffling, but only to people who lack the sufficeint knowledge to understand them. They can still be shown empirical evidence, and to predict your reply, no, there is no empirical evidence for God or creation.

Your analogy fails.

They wouldn't appreciate that very much and neither do I.

Appeal to emotion.

You are violating morality in two ways when you do this as well as using logical fallacies, as I've already explained.

You've used more logical fallacies in this thread than anyone else. Hypocrite, much? Also this is another logical fallacy, appeal to consequence.

:facepalm:

 

[borrofburi]

He's said he's willing to debate. I don't have power to create a debate here. I think he does. So get on HIS case, not mine.

AronRa does not, only the forum mods do (some chat mods are forum mods). I'm sorry it hasn't been set up yet, this is primarily my fault (but I'm going to partially blame Squawk, so hah). I'll send a PM to both you and AronRa some time today (note that I go to sleep at about 11am your time and wake up at about 9pm your time (read: I just woke up in the past hour or so), so my "today" is split over your night), probably within the next hour, to finalize details.

 

[borrofburi]

But, you are wrong that they have zero scientific credentials. Hovind and Ham have bachelor's degrees in science areas.

No, Hovind has a "bachelor's degree" from an unaccredited college in "religious education", and a "master's degree" from an unaccredited "university" in "Christian Education". These are not scientific credentials; Hovind has zero scientific credentials.

Dembski:
"Remaining in academia Dembski pursued multiple degrees, ultimately completing an undergraduate degree in psychology (1981, University of Illinois at Chicago), masters degrees in statistics, mathematics and philosophy (1983, University of Illinois at Chicago; 1985, University of Chicago; 1993, University of Illinois at Chicago respectively), a PhD in mathematics (1988, University of Chicago) and a Master of Divinity in theology at the Princeton Theological Seminary (1996)."
...
I think most people would consider psychology,statistics and math to be parts of science. Do you not?

While I begrudgingly admit that psychology is a science (despite it's current immaturity), it hardly counts as proper scientific credentials to speak on biology. I wouldn't even trust a physicist to comment on biology, and physics is one of the more well regarded sciences. I'd extend a little bit of trust to a chemist speaking about biochemistry, but if a chemist starts "authoritatively" speaking on entomology I consider him to be overstepping his bounds; I extend some trust to a geologist commenting on the fossil record, but when that geologist starts to "authoritatively" comment on neurology I consider her to be overstepping her bounds. When a psychologist starts commenting on biochemistry, neurology, geological fossil records, ecology, and evolution I consider that psychologist to be so far over his bounds as to have no merit in the discussion more than the average college graduate. In simplest terms: Dembski's psych degree may count as a "scientific credential" but in a discussion on biology it is a completely meaningless one.


EDIT:
but the whole point of this was that there are creationists that would agree with AronRa's definition... You're response was "well the True Creationistsâ„¢ wouldn't!" Err, no, that's not a valid argument.

 

[borrofburi]

Engineers or scientists don't invokve the supernatural, they don't produce unaccountable effects because by virtue of the fact someone has done them they are accountable. I grant you certain things my be baffling, but only to people who lack the sufficeint knowledge to understand them. They can still be shown empirical evidence, and to predict your reply, no, there is no empirical evidence for God or creation.

I don't think this is quite right. I think it's far more accurate to say: engineers and scientists do things that do NOT violate the rules of the universe; god as the being to supposedly have created the rules is by definition doing things that violate the current rules of the universe, and that is by definition a supernatural act (beyond natural).

then you'd have to call what every computer engineer does magic as well as what many other scientists do. They wouldn't appreciate that very much and neither do I

Honestly I consider it kick ass to think I and my friends are magical wizards. On a more practical note it's a certain amount of job security if what we do is considered magic by the people that hire us.

 

[MineMineMine]

Austro,
God's creation of life is like a computer engineer designing a computer, setting up the rules it should run by, and using them to make programs, but also being able to set them aside for a bit if he really wants to. God creation is just infinitely grander than any computer designers is.

Unprovable nonsense but whatever, I'll allow it.

thats totally impossible. the hardware design is still governed by physics you can't just set aside. And software is ruled by what the hardware allows them.

and god creation grand? my webcam works way better than my eye.

 

[australopithecus]

I don't think this is quite right. I think it's far more accurate to say: engineers and scientists do things that do NOT violate the rules of the universe; god as the being to supposedly have created the rules is by definition doing things that violate the current rules of the universe, and that is by definition a supernatural act (beyond natural).

You and your logic... :cry:

 

[Deleted member 619]

Slight distinction to be drawn there, but an important one. The blackness of a black person is physical, not cultural.

Doesn't matter. I was born SDA. While physical and worldview and cultural are different, ridicule isn't done only because of physical reasons. And my wife has experienced prejudice quite a few times because she married a foreigner as have I as a minority living here in Korea. In several ways I've been extremely frustrated since legally I'm a 2nd class citizen here (and a friend of my friend found out that legally, foreigners here are considered slaves actually..in a case that's gone to the supreme court and is now in the UN I believe). I can give you several examples of that. The people in many cases have been great and incredible many times, but all cultures have some jerks in them and criminals, etc....but in legal issues and government issues there's a lot of 2nd class citizen stuff I have to meet and it's frustrating. I won't say it's the same as being black...but the principle is very similar. I also know what it means to be ridiculed for having a minority view ruthlessly. Just see some of the posts here for examples of that from certain people. But, I've grown used to it and pity those who do it since they dishonor the legacy of all scientists including Darwin and they do it out of ignorance and being victims of a system that has withheld information from them.

Well done for massively missing the point, which is clear from the posting of this catalogue of irrelevance (BTW, paragraphs work which, as an alleged teacher of English, you should know).

The point is that your beliefs are mere ideas. Bad ideas exist only to be destroyed. By ridiculing your beliefs, which is about the only reasonable thing to do with such utterly fucking stupid beliefs, we are NOT ridiculing you. The fact that so many of the credulous cannot separate themselves from their ideas is a) absolutely of no consequence to me and b) symptomatic only of how dogmatic they are with regard to them.

The rest is mere evasion.

ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Magic is regarding deceit, illusions, sleight of hand, etc.

Wrongo! You were provided with a perfectly lucid definition for magic, and your preposterous miracles are most definitely covered by that definition, including your ludicrous fucking creation myth.

MIRACLES ARE a suspension of physical laws or a higher intelligence being knowing how to work beyond them..[sic]

Wrong. Being able to work beyond physical laws is precisely the same as suspending them. You have drawn no distinction. Still magic, as previously defined.

even some scientists have done that...but we don't say they are doing magic...TESLA for instance.

Wrong again. You're really not very good at this, are you? What those scientists did was to elucidate new principles upon which reality operates, Tesla included. Those do not constitute suspensions of natural laws or 'working beyond them'.

Even airplanes conquer the law of gravity.

No, they most certainly do not. They are under the influence of gravity the entire time they're in the air, and the law of gravity forms part of the design, in the form of something that must be taken into account.

Higher intelligence is NEVER called magic.

It certainly is, because that's precisely what I call this 'higher intelligence', and will continue to do so until such time as a) you can present evidence that there is any such thing or b) that you demonstrate that the way it operates does not constitute a suspension of natural laws.

And your peeping tom is also a derogatory insult.

It certainly is, but blasphemy is a victimless crime. Oh, and it isn't my celestial peeping-tom, it's yours. The insult is not directed at you, however, so you have no right to feel insulted. If your cosmic curtain-twitcher wants to come and take up my insult toward him, he's perfectly free to do so, though the stupid cunt can expect no special respect from me. Indeed, if this cretinous entity were introduced to me now, I'd have some hard questions for him, and probably a kick in the family jewels for being such a twat.

I have plenty of derogatory things I could say about atheists if I wanted to.

You certainly could, but then you'd be directly insulting forum members, which would be frowned upon. As far as I'm aware, neither your astral knob-jockey nor his son, the magic Jewish maggot-buffet, are members here. Let me know when they join so I can moderate my discussion of them.

I have tried hard to resist that temptation most of the time and let you define what your view is without using any immature epithets and misrepresentations. I gave 1 single example of what I could say in the hypothetical definition of atheist in my long post to Aronra. Don't imagine that that's the only thing I could say. Far from it. But ridicule just shows that you are immature and don't know how to engage in rational debate and aren't open minded and usually makes people too proud to follow genuine science and knowledge. So, I try hard to resist the temptation. I've said several things things in commendation of some atheists, including a few here. It's base immaturity to label everyone in a different camp as stupid, ignorant, believing in magic, immoral, dishonest etc. one of the most childish things a person could do. Yet, Aronra did exactly that and about the only thing he's done so far is proven his own dishonesty and his rude immaturity in refusing to allow others to define their own views. I'm astounded at this violation of basic human decency. It's seldom been equaled in my 20 years of debates with atheists. If you see nothing wrong with it, then you have to accept my definition of atheist. PERIOD.
Bryan

Several things wrong with this:

Firstly, my atheism isn't a view, it's the absence of one. I certainly have very firm views on the existence of your particular sky-daddy, because as defined in your preposterous book of mindless wibble he's a logical impossibility, having been allocated logically absurd and mutually exclusive attributes. There's no escaping that.

Secondly, the foundation upon which your fuckwitted mythology is predicated is a fucking lie, namely original sin, because the alleged committers of this original sin, Adam and Eve, didn't fucking exist. Another inescapable.

Third, I have to accept nothing from you, although I will happily accpet anything whatsoever from you if you can demonstrate it to be actually in accord with reality. Good luck with doing that.

Finally, with regard to definitions, and what you accept, you have contrdicted yourself multiple times in this thread in that regard. Definitions are not personal, they are descriptive of what is. Only properly formulated and rigorous definitions are acceptable. All the definitions thus far provided in this thread by those whose definitions you do not accept fulfil the definitional obligations, namely being both sufficient and necessary. If your definitions do not fulfil these criteria, they will be rejected wholesale, because that's how definitions work. It has already been explained to you why the operational definition of atheism that the majority of atheists here are working with fulfils these obligations.

I thought you were supposed to be this expert edjumacater in Englsih, and yet you don't understand this extremely baisc principle, a principle which, had I not understood this at the age of 11, I would have left the classroom with a sore pair of buttocks in one hand and an F grade in the other.*


Thanks to the Blue Wingéd One for that one