Definition of God - one thread to rule them all

[paddoboy]

"genuine branches of knowledge"? Sounds like a no true Scotsman fallacy. No doubt, if it doesn't include scientific knowledge, you think it's not a "genuine" branch of knowledge. Which means your little admission to not ignoring them is a complete lie. Philosophy, ontology, epistemology, etc. all underlie and justify our scientific knowledge, and all of them thus cannot be addressed using scientific methodology. They are branches of pure reason and logic, and you denying any but scientific answers denies these as well.

Again the usual dishonest approach used by many creationists/IDers etc
Let me again ask you, what category do you place mythical constructs in? Yep, I recognise many other branches of knowledge despite your lies to the contrary.
By the way, I expected you to ignore my questions in the political forum [they certainly drag you out of the closet ] but you have also yet to comment on your handle, which as it so happens, suits exactly the final question I posed in that same political forum.
While you so often use your tired old cliches, meant to categorise people...[you know, like atheists, scientism, lefties etc] it is your own obvious categorisation that shows you as a fraud

Look, just own your blind faith already. Everyone sees it but you.

Not sure who "everybody" is [your overlords perhaps] but you certainly lack support here and in the political sections.
Psychotic delusional syndrome perhaps?

 

[Vociferous]

Again the usual dishonest approach used by many creationists/IDers etc
Let me again ask you, what category do you place mythical constructs in?

I don't have any mythology. Are you asking how I'd categorize Christian mythology?

Yep, I recognise many other branches of knowledge despite your lies to the contrary.

Then from what other branch of knowledge would you accept an alternative to abiogenesis. You know, to actually make it falsifiable. If none, it's you who is demonstrably lying.

By the way, I expected you to ignore my questions in the political forum [they certainly drag you out of the closet] but you have also yet to comment on your handle, which as it so happens, suits exactly the final question I posed in that same political forum.

I have you on ignore, so if I miss something...meh. You've proven that you'll take it however you like, regardless of anything I say.

Not sure who "everybody" is [your overlords perhaps] but you certainly lack support here and in the political sections.
Psychotic delusional syndrome perhaps?

Sorry, I meant "everyone reasonable". My bad.

 

[paddoboy]

I don't have any mythology. Are you asking how I'd categorize Christian mythology?

Stop being so bloody obtuse...you aint fooling anyone.

Then from what other branch of knowledge would you accept an alternative to abiogenesis. You know, to actually make it falsifiable. If none, it's you who is demonstrably lying.

The factual aspect of Abiogenesis, and the unknown exact methodology and falsifiability has been explained to you, but obviously the baggage you carry and agenda you harbor, blinds you to that and many other facts.

I have you on ignore, so if I miss something...meh. You've proven that you'll take it however you like, regardless of anything I say.

Whether you have me on ignore or not is no skin off my nose...I'll keep right on refuting any nonsensical, unproven, unevidenced or stupid claim you make, OK?
Obviously the difficult questions put to you, both political and non political have you running scared.
Let's list the one again pertaining to this thread....
[1] Does your handle reflect on who you are...loud mouthed, forceful and insistent?
Obviously the last of the political questions only have one obvious answer....
Let me add another....Do you see your attitude in general, as a "fuck you, I'm alright Jack" mentality?

Sorry, I meant "everyone reasonable". My bad.

Your overlords are far from reasonable I suggest.

 

[Vociferous]

Stop being so bloody obtuse...you aint fooling anyone.

Apparently fooling you, since you prefer your straw men.

The factual aspect of Abiogenesis, and the unknown exact methodology and falsifiability has been explained to you, but obviously the baggage you carry and agenda you harbor, blinds you to that and many other facts.

There is no "factual aspect" of abiogenesis (you even capitalize the word, because it has special significance in your faith). Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, which only has a factual basis in evidence that actually supports the hypothesis. No such evidence exists, but your ignorant, blind faith must insist there is, even though you can't detail any at all. Good hypotheses are falsifiable, not just quibbling over details. But if you understood even half of what you claim about science, you'd already know that.

Whether you have me on ignore or not is no skin off my nose...I'll keep right on refuting any nonsensical, unproven, unevidenced or stupid claim you make, OK?
Obviously the difficult questions put to you, both political and non political have you running scared.
Let's list the one again pertaining to this thread....
[1] Does your handle reflect on who you are...loud mouthed, forceful and insistent?
Obviously the last of the political questions only have one obvious answer....
Let me add another....Do you see your attitude in general, as a "fuck you, I'm alright Jack" mentality?

Wasn't trying to hurt your feelings, just tell you why I don't catch your every post.
No, I'm actually fairly mild mannered and reserved, albeit opinionated.
No, I wish to see all people succeed, and believe they can. The world is not a zero sum game.

But it's not like you'll ever believe anything I tell you. You have to maintain your little demonized straw man of me in your head, lest you seriously start to doubt your own ideology.

Your overlords are far from reasonable I suggest.

You keep saying that, but I have no idea what you mean by "overlords". Just part of your straw man myth, to bolster your wavering faith.

 

[paddoboy]

Apparently fooling you, since you prefer your straw men.

No strawman, just facts that reveal what you are. Evidence by your failure to answer questions.

There is no "factual aspect" of abiogenesis (you even capitalize the word, because it has special significance in your faith). Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, which only has a factual basis in evidence that actually supports the hypothesis. No such evidence exists, but your ignorant, blind faith must insist there is, even though you can't detail any at all. Good hypotheses are falsifiable, not just quibbling over details. But if you understood even half of what you claim about science, you'd already know that.

The big difference is based on the fact that once there was no life: then there was. You solve that with myth, and unscientific and paranormal means...Science solves it with the factually only scientific answer of Abiogenesis. Of course as yet, we do not know the exact pathway or methodology that Abiogenesis took, but that does not invalidate the process of Abiogenesis itself, despite your continued railing against that fact.

Wasn't trying to hurt your feelings, just tell you why I don't catch your every post.

You need to stop fooling yourself and understand that I really don't give a fuck who reads and either agrees with, or disagrees with my posts. I post here for science and because of my love of science and the reasonable scientific method on which it is based.
ps: Oh, and I don't catch your every post either, particularly your selfish political stance.

No, I'm actually fairly mild mannered and reserved, albeit opinionated.

Not according to the definition of your handle......https://www.google.com/search?q=voc...2j0l5j69i60.4999j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8"expressing or characterized by vehement opinions; loud and forceful" "marked by or given to vehement insistent outcry".
"Vociferous people express their opinions and complaints loudly and repeatedly in speech, and vociferous demands, etc. are made repeatedly and loudly":

No, I wish to see all people succeed, and believe they can. The world is not a zero sum game.

As do I. But I also face the reality that some will fail for a variety of reasons and bad luck etc. Also while you and I may have been born in "lucky countries" not all are, obviously. Poverty exists, although science has done much through meteorology, agriculture etc to alleviate much of that. Still it exists. And myself and my wife, have and do take practical means to help in that predicament in a small way....Need I really say more on that score?

But it's not like you'll ever believe anything I tell you. You have to maintain your little demonized straw man of me in your head, lest you seriously start to doubt your own ideology.

You, obviously, have created your own little demonised picture of yourself....I didn't force you to take on your handle....I'm not forcing you to come to a science forum preaching creationism and deriding science.....I'm not forcing you to support a president in your country that is detested around the world for his "fuck you, I'm alright Jack"attitude.

You keep saying that, but I have no idea what you mean by "overlords". Just part of your straw man myth, to bolster your wavering faith.

Whoever you are trying to impress with your categorisation and bullshit derisive terms like scientism, lefties, atheism, and dismissing anything that confronts your ideology with "strawman". You may get a better reception at another forum.

 

[arfa brane]

I don't have any mythology.

Says the man who just told us he owns three (count 'em!) guns, for "personal protection". So you admit to subscribing to the myth that "guns keep you safe".

Is it really a myth? Given that the statistics imply that gun ownership makes everyone more likely to be killed or injured (I may have mentioned long prison sentences if a court disagrees with your "justification" defense), than it confers protection, I'd say yeah, that's exactly right, Jim.

But apart from that particular myth, I'd say anyone who claims to lead a mythology-free existence is most likely lying. Or seriously doesn't understand themselves.

 

[Vociferous]

Says the man who just told us he owns three (count 'em!) guns, for "personal protection". So you admit to subscribing to the myth that "guns keep you safe".

Guns don't keep you safe. Only you can keep you safe. Guns are just inanimate tools.

Is it really a myth? Given that the statistics imply that gun ownership makes everyone more likely to be killed or injured (I may have mentioned long prison sentences if a court disagrees with your "justification" defense), than it confers protection, I'd say yeah, that's exactly right, Jim.

Again, a significant percentage of criminals greatly skews those statistics.

But apart from that particular myth, I'd say anyone who claims to lead a mythology-free existence is most likely lying. Or seriously doesn't understand themselves.

I readily admit to having beliefs. I just don't need a narrative mythology to bolster those beliefs, when reasoning alone will suffice.

 

[arfa brane]

I readily admit to having beliefs. I just don't need a narrative mythology to bolster those beliefs, when reasoning alone will suffice.

Ah, I see you subscribe to the myth that you can reason and that's all you need to do.
Bullshit.

 

[Vociferous]

Ah, I see you subscribe to the myth that you can reason and that's all you need to do.
Bullshit.

Tell yourself whatever you need to. I don't feel the need to doubt whatever you tell me you believe.

You've bored me now. Ta ta.

 

[James R]

Abiogenesis is no more than a myth and claim without evidence, yet you believe it.

Let's assume you're right. That would put abiogenesis and creation by a God on the same footing, wouldn't it? Both myths and claims that are believed without evidence (if they are believed).

Why do you think you're any better than Dave, if you believe in creation by God and he believes in abiogenesis? What makes your preferred myth better than his one?

 

[arfa brane]

Tell yourself whatever you need to.

Ok. I tell myself that someone with a carry permit probably feels different emotionally when they aren't carrying than when they are.

Also that they might try to convince themselves that it's about protection, an entirely rational decision was involved. Neither is true, its about displaying and an emotional connection to something, it's not rational thinking, it's emotional thinking.

 

[Vociferous]

Abiogenesis is no more than a myth and claim without evidence, yet you believe it.

Let's assume you're right. That would put abiogenesis and creation by a God on the same footing, wouldn't it? Both myths and claims that are believed without evidence (if they are believed).

Why do you think you're any better than Dave, if you believe in creation by God and he believes in abiogenesis? What makes your preferred myth better than his one?

And I've said as much, several times. Here's one example I could readily find:

Saying "life is here" so it must have been abiogenesis is no more compelling that saying "life is here" so it must have been God (which you'll note, I've never said). In both cases, something existing does not, itself, explain its own origin.

The difference, as I've already explained, is that I readily admit mine is a belief, while several proponents of abiogenesis are claiming it is a fact, without any belief involved. That intellectual honesty and self-awareness is what makes mine better.

Ok. I tell myself that someone with a carry permit probably feels different emotionally when they aren't carrying than when they are.

Also that they might try to convince themselves that it's about protection, an entirely rational decision was involved. Neither is true, its about displaying and an emotional connection to something, it's not rational thinking, it's emotional thinking.

Since I'm rarely aware of it when I'm carrying, it would be hard to feel any different. And no one knows I carry, that would make me a target of criminals seeking guns, and I'm not looking to make those irrationally afraid of guns uncomfortable. The emotional thinking is you projecting all these assumptions on me to justify your own fears.

 

[arfa brane]

Since I'm rarely aware of it when I'm carrying, it would be hard to feel any different.

How about if you reach for this gun you can't tell if you're carrying, and you realise it's not actually there? Although I bet you've never done that, because you can tell if you're carrying. So another lie of sorts, but to yourself mostly.

And no one knows I carry, that would make me a target of criminals seeking guns, and I'm not looking to make those irrationally afraid of guns uncomfortable.

Right, but just let them try to take your gun, eh?

You have to rationalise the handing over of your weapon if you want a beer, with something like: "I can get as drunk as I like in here, as long as I'm not carrying". Which leaves the after-bar rationalisation of drunk man with weapon, 'til later. Let's have another beer.

 

[paddoboy]

The difference, as I've already explained, is that I readily admit mine is a belief, while several proponents of abiogenesis are claiming it is a fact, without any belief involved. That intellectual honesty and self-awareness is what makes mine better.

Stop trying to pull the wool over people's eye Vociferous. You admit your belief in any deity [still don't know which one yet] is just a belief because that is what it is...that is painfully obvious, as a previous person, Toroko [or similar] was open and brave enough to admit.

And speaking as probably the proponent of Abiogenisis that you are referring to, my opinion is based on the fact that [1] Abiogenisis is the only scientific answer, and while we don't [and possibly never will have] have any direct example of it, many, many lines of evidence points to the fact that the stuff of life is everywhere we look in this great big wide wonderful universe, and [2] as I have told you many times, any opposing hypothetical, like a creator, is just not scientific, like any other supposed supernatural entity/event or whatever.
Can I ask you another question? You have said many times that you know your science as well as knocking others, yet I don't believe you have yet posted in any science thread...is this correct? Why?

 

[Vociferous]

How about if you reach for this gun you can't tell if you're carrying, and you realise it's not actually there? Although I bet you've never done that, because you can tell if you're carrying. So another lie of sorts, but to yourself mostly.

LOL! You have zero clue. My holster if comfortable enough to not be aware of it. And it doesn't follow that since I'm not always aware of carrying that I'm unaware of having put it on. Quit making up bs out of your own irrational fears.

Right, but just let them try to take your gun, eh?

Try to take the gun they don't know I'm carrying, or try to take my guns right through legislation? Two very different propositions.

You have to rationalise the handing over of your weapon if you want a beer, with something like: "I can get as drunk as I like in here, as long as I'm not carrying". Which leaves the after-bar rationalisation of drunk man with weapon, 'til later. Let's have another beer.

Bars don't keep your gun for you. That's not their responsibility. When I go out to drink, I'm either the designated driver and leave my gun secured in my car, or I'm not driving, have no car of my own to leave one in, and thus don't take it at all. IOW, either way, I'm sober when carrying, as being under the influence also bars you from carrying in every state I know of.

Educate yourself, so you can allay some of your irrational and ignorant fears.

 

[paddoboy]

 

[James R]

The difference, as I've already explained, is that I readily admit mine is a belief, while several proponents of abiogenesis are claiming it is a fact, without any belief involved. That intellectual honesty and self-awareness is what makes mine better.

No. It doesn't make your belief any better than theirs. It is important to separate the belief itself from the belief about the belief. If you don't do that, you risk confusing the two.

 

[Vociferous]

No. It doesn't make your belief any better than theirs. It is important to separate the belief itself from the belief about the belief. If you don't do that, you risk confusing the two.

An intellectually honest belief is inherently better than an intellectually dishonest one. Because intellectual dishonesty compromises the belief itself. Neither belief has supporting evidence upon which to assess merit.

 

[James R]

Neither belief has supporting evidence upon which to assess merit.

Well, I'm not so sure about that.

We have very good evidence that all life evolved from simpler forms of life. The chemistry of life is very suggestive of the conclusion that life most probably arose from simpler chemical precursors, which would be abiogenesis.

The alternative is that a magical sky daddy created life by force of will. The main problem for that is that there's nothing to suggest that is what actually happened. It's a claim that's in approximately the same territory as God creating light by force of will. Even bigger problem is that we haven't even got to first base in establishing the existence of said sky daddy with any degree of justifiable confidence. In other words, it's god of the gaps, as usual.

 

[James R]

Why are people discussing guns in a thread about the definition of God? Please try to stay on topic. (Mind you, why are we discussing abiogenesis in a thread about the definition of God?) Focus, people, focus!