Belief is Opinion

[Kinich Ahau]

Yep!

[Drew_2013]

Well, you tried at least? That's not how things work at all. But since you've made declarations and haven't bothered to back them up with anything, I'm simply going to dismiss them with the same level of reasoning. Here goes -

Firstly, i think you're mixing up "how" and "why". We ask "why" to some questions, sure, but before we find the reason, we determine if there is one. The biggest question is not why, it's how.
You're just wrong, period. There's really no other way to put it.

I said baloney last time to be nice...how about bullshit? Asking why doesn't presume anything except perhaps in your own mind. How and why are two sides of the same coin. One attempts to discover how something works to establish why the phenomena in question occurs. Scientists do in fact presume there is a why to the question 'why does life exist?' The tentative answer to why life exists is some form of abiogensis. If true it would tell us why life came into existence as well as how it came into existence. The presumed why life exists is because natural forces without plan or intent fortuitously created the circumstances that caused life to occur. Scientists are committed to naturalistic explanations only.

Mike you seem to have forgotten the standard you hold everyone else to, that those who make a claim need to back it up. You're just flat out being silly making this claim but apparently rather than back out you're going to double down on it...it's your credibility at stake not mine.

This question presumes there is a "why" to life, which presumes there is something that purposely created the life. Subsequently, it is horrendously biased and not particularly useful for anyone genuinely questioning.

[Kate]

[dogpet]

Drew_2013 wrote

Scientists do in fact presume there is a why to the question 'why does life exist?'

Not in the way you ask it, duplicious Drewl. You presume meaning with your unqualified why.

Your tears taste delicious.

[Francis]

Michael wrote

He stated it, but definitely not accurately.. He stated it without anything to back it up. Hence, I dismissed it the same way.

Cause is "how", not "why". Reason is "why". You cannot prove there is reason for everything, so you cannot ask what that reason you can't demonstrate is.




Big words for someone too scared to define religion and have his vacuous ideas tested.



You're too scared to define religion and defend your beliefs, drew is too scared to give his "evidence", answer questions, or defend his beliefs.
It's funny how predictably scared of actual arguments every theist is. You're all great at talking bullshit, though. I guess when you surround yourself in bullshit beliefs, it becomes easier to make it up.

I see. Now you are hiding behind "coward" and the childish profanity so prevalent here.

And of course you continue to intentionally and falsely misrepresent what I stated. Look to the first post in the "Atheism is religion" thread and note its multiple part identifier of religion. You keep saying "definition" because you are hoping there might be another set of words you might have better luck arguing with. I am sticking to my behaviorist analysis.

Now go ahead and discuss the Crusades or the Inquisition. That might distract someone from your churchiness

[Michael]

Drew_2013 wrote

I said baloney last time to be nice...how about bullshit?

You're right, you were being nice, and I was still in dealing with francis mode. Alright, I'll dial it back.

Asking why doesn't presume anything except perhaps in your own mind. How and why are two sides of the same coin. One attempts to discover how something works to establish why the phenomena in question occurs.

I think Dogpet nailed it on the head:

Not in the way you ask it, duplicious Drewl. You presume meaning with your unqualified why.

How and why can be interchangeable. I can easily ask the question "why is there life?" and mean simply "how did life come about?". I do get that you are trying to make this point.

The problem is that you have loaded "why" with intent, so when you ask "why is there life?", you are asking not "how did life come about", but rather "for what purpose did life come about?", but dressing it up as though you actually just mean the previous.

It's a classic bait and switch.
Hence why. I have been trying to insist on not using "why", but "how". If - as you say - you are simply asking about the mechanics, then you don't need to use a loaded "why", when "how" will do.

Scientists do in fact presume there is a why to the question 'why does life exist?' The tentative answer to why life exists is some form of abiogensis.

"How did life come to exist" asks the same question without sneaking meaning and intent into the conversation.

If true it would tell us why life came into existence as well as how it came into existence.

See? There it is. You start by saying "but scientists always aky why is there life!" But then sneakily sneak the meaning over to "but why is there life?". You've snuck meaning and intent into the conversation under the guise of questioning the mechanics of life. This is why I was trying to get 'why' out of the conversation, and will continue to insist on 'how'.

Mike you seem to have forgotten the standard you hold everyone else to, that those who make a claim need to back it up. You're just flat out being silly making this claim but apparently rather than back out you're going to double down on it...it's your credibility at stake not mine.

As I have stated previously, I will consider or dismiss anything you say with the same level as you say it. If you prevent a case with logic and reason backing it up, I will consider it, then present my own logic and reason to either agree or disagree.

If you simply state that something must the way it is, I will simply dismiss it the same way.

You felt felt perfectly fine making unbacked statements, so I felt perfectly fine dismissing unbacked statements.
Next time bring something more substantial and see what happens. You know, like this evidence you promised days - and pages - ago, but mysteriously never appeared.

[Francis]

dogpet wrote

... duplicious (sic) Drewl. lol.....:

I assume you meant "duplicitous".

The religious attribute dishonesty to people who disagree with them, as you do. Do you meet with other atheists regularly? Do they charge a membership fee ? I already know you cackle in imagined superiority.

[Michael]

Francis wrote

I see. Now you are hiding behind "coward" and the childish profanity so prevalent here.

And of course you continue to intentionally and falsely misrepresent what I stated. Look to the first post in the "Atheism is religion" thread and note its multiple part identifier of religion.

I did. And when I quoted you on that, and showed my reason for it being horrendously wrong, you claimed never to have written it.

So. I'll ask again. What is a religion, and what are the defining characterisitcs required to be a religion?
If you want to say that your first post holds true, then so does my rebuttal to it, and subsequently all your objections since are null, since they are based on you claiming you never said what I quoted you on.

So which is it?

You keep saying "definition" because you are hoping there might be another set of words you might have better luck arguing with. I am sticking to my behaviorist analysis.

Now go ahead and discuss the Crusades or the Inquisition. That might distract someone from your churchiness

It's quite simple, really.
If you want me to stop calling you a coward, stop being a coward.

Until then, I will continue to recognise that you are too scared of actual logic to put your beliefs to the test, coward.

What I don't get is if you're so certain you're right, why are you so terrified to actually defend your beliefs?

[dogpet]

Francis wrote

I assume you meant "duplicitous".

Yes I did mean duplicitous, thank you Francis, for correcting me.

Do you meet with other atheists regularly? Do they charge a membership fee ? I already know you cackle in imagined superiority.

You don't know the first thing about me you duplicitous stalking cunt. Keep guessing.

[Kate]

[Francis]

Michael wrote

I did. And when I quoted you on that, and showed my reason for it being horrendously wrong, you claimed never to have written it.

...
What I don't get is if you're so certain you're right, why are you so terrified to actually defend your beliefs?

Do you state that atheist groups do not meet regularly? Yes or no.

Do you state that atheist groups do not hustle contributions? Yes or no

Do you state that atheists, especially ones like you, attribute dishonesty to those who disagree with them ? Yes or no

Do you state that atheists, like those on this forum, cackle in imagined moral superiority over those who disagree with them? Yes or no.

This is how I use behavioral analysis to identify religion. Too bad if you find difficulty rebutting it. Too bad if you are hoping for a different definition.
You only want to debate if you can control the statements of your opponents. Tough luck on that.

I have stated what is, in its essence, a definition of religion. You,with your mental black marking pen, have redacted this definition because you cannot face it or discuss it without mandating the conclusion you abhor

[Drew_2013]

A while back I submitted three lines of evidence in favor of theism.

1. The fact the universe exists

2. The fact life exists

3. The fact sentient life exists.

I mentioned that if these things didn't exist the claim there is no evidence in favor of theism would actually be true. I said the very fact of their existence raises the question why they exist. Its not the fault of the asker that he or she asks why such exists...the fault lies with the fact they do exist.

However, just because we ask why doesn't mean the answer will lead to a personal agent who made a decision to cause such, that is the question in dispute. A philosophical question, not a scientific one. This is a philosophical debate (minus the pictures, bathroom humor).

[Kinich Ahau]

One puddle named Drew says to another nearby puddle "Francis, I can't believe how lucky we are. These holes fit us perfectly".

[Drew_2013]

One puddle named Drew says to another nearby puddle "Francis, I can't believe how lucky we are. These holes fit us perfectly".

Why don't you explain what you think that means and how you believe it applies to the conversation we're having Otherwise I'm liable to think you just repeat something you heard cause you thought it was clever.

[Kinich Ahau]

Think for yourself. This is a common problem with theists, you have to explain every analogy. Even Jerry understands most analogies and you can see how thick he is.