pauloskie38:
HOW would you define faith? Some equate it with blind belief. Influential American essayist and journalist H. L. Mencken once called faith “an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.”

The Bible, in contrast, describes faith as being neither blind nor illogical. God’s Word says: “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.”​—Hebrews 11:1.

Given the different opinions about faith, let us consider the answers to the following questions:

• How is the Bible’s definition different from what many refer to when they talk about faith?

• Why is it vital that we develop the kind of faith that the Bible describes?

• How can you build strong faith?

A Title Deed and Solid Evidence

At the time of the writing of the Bible book of Hebrews, the Greek term translated “assured expectation” was commonly used. It often appeared in business documents and carried the idea of a guarantee of future possession of something. Therefore, one reference work suggests that Hebrews 11:1 could be translated: “Faith is the title-deed of things hoped for.”

If you have ever bought an item from a reputable company and then waited for it to be delivered, you have exercised that type of faith. The sales receipt in your hand gave you reason for faith in the company from which you bought the item. In a sense, that receipt was your title deed, your guarantee that you would receive what you purchased. If you had lost the receipt or had thrown it away, you would have lost the proof of your claim of ownership. Similarly, those who have faith that God will fulfill his promises are guaranteed to receive what they hope for. On the other hand, those who do not have faith, or who lose it, are not entitled to receive the things God promises.​—James 1:5-8.

The second expression at Hebrews 11:1, translated “evident demonstration,” carries the idea of producing evidence that contradicts that which only appears to be factual. For instance, the sun appears to revolve around the earth​—rising in the east, moving through the sky, and setting in the west. However, evidence from astronomy and mathematics reveals that the earth is not the center of the solar system. Once you become familiar with that evidence and accept it as true, you have faith that the earth revolves around the sun​—despite what your eyes tell you. Your faith is not blind. On the contrary, it gives you the ability to see things as they really are, not merely as they seem to be.

How Important Is Strong Faith?

This is the type of faith that the Bible encourages​—strong faith built on solid evidence, even if it requires that we adjust our beliefs. Such faith is vital. The apostle Paul wrote: “Without faith no one can please God. Anyone who comes to God must believe that he is real and that he rewards those who truly want to find him.”​—Hebrews 11:6, New Century Version.

There are many challenges to developing strong faith. But if you take the four steps discussed on the following pages, you can succeed.

Daejoyoung:
No the question is for atheists specifically, because I am not arguing against evolution, I’m arguing against the interpretation of evolution by atheists. Many religious people accept evolution too.

Daejoyoung:
Am I a creationist? I am only asking you the why behind evolution, and how it relates to the God question, not the truth or falsehood of evolution

Daejoyoung:
The logical evidence is the existence of the world that we live in, and the fact that we exist, it is more logical to conclude that something or an intelligence made my hand evolve to be this way, so I can use it the way I currently use it.

Daejoyoung:
Randomness that is filtered cannot be so precise.

Daejoyoung:
it’s still a stretch of faith to conclude that this algorithm produced humans and the world

Daejoyoung:
Well if science is wrong on evolution, the default assumption ( as it had been before evolution) would continue to be that god or gods created the world, so a higher intelligence created the world and us.

DrLiveLogic:

You know, Tantrum, you got a lot of "huff, puff, and oh, it's just bluff and guff that makes up your stuff" in you.

DrLiveLogic:
Proven!....by his statement.

DrLiveLogic:
It's evident you've thrown out a mind of your own and will accept anything that comes remotely close to a pillow for your cozy lies.

DrLiveLogic:
To begin with, simple question for my thread. Does consistency of pattern in repeated processes reveal intelligence, like in mass production in a factory?

DrLiveLogic:
If so, tell me, without quoting another human, if the genetic code is unintelligent.

DrLiveLogic:
I've mentioned r you on my thread. When you mention suffering, disease, predation, and distaste for slavery in one paragraph, you have no idea how much evidence you already provided for the creator and his perfect nature.

DrLiveLogic:
I'll keep these in the record. Shall we tango? Of course, you can suggest the "romantic interlude".

TRANSLATION: I get sexually aroused arguing Tamaraton Tantrum. i’m gonna go have a yank. But I will be back

DrLiveLogic:
Unlike you, I'm among the freeest men alive from tentacles and shackles of a fellow human's thought.

TRANSLATION: I am free of all human thought because I have God. As soon as my meds wear off, I will talk with him again. He is waiting for me in my room. He watches me when I touch myself.

DrLiveLogic:
And bandwagon fallacy is all I see in your post up there.

DrLiveLogic:
Then try bringing forth the arguments and objective evidence for current evolution rhetoric, one by one, to my thread, to be trashed as usual.

TRANSLATION: I still think that if I can trash Evolution, my God will be the default position. I am not stupid, I just don’t read posts that disagree with my position. If evolution is wrong, my god wins. Bleep the Catholics and their belief in evolution. They aren’t real Christians anyway.

Dtruthspeaker:
An statement spoken in truth to bring about a change, even though adverse is not a Troll (now you go fight dis one)

"It's your belief, so the burden of proof is logically and epistemologically entirely yours"

And I very clearly answered that I was going to respond to and discharge the burden BUT how are we going to know that my burden has been Rightly Discharged and shifted to you, if We Do Not Have A Standard for Determining when we can both agree that the burden has passed. (U go still fight dis one too, infact I know say you go fight d whole thing I don talk as Miranda say "every word or statement you make shall be used against you" whether properly or not)

Especially as Atheist such as yourself are known to Always Change their Argument and Position, Lie and Breach every Standard of Reasonable Healthy arguments that lead to a proper and concluisive end, not an argument till eternity which is not profitable to any reasonable person but an Atheist or Satanist or Hater of Truths.

So All these grammar was just to obtain from you what are Truths to you, Established Truths, like You can not walk through walls Truth or can you? Or you can not live in the sea as a fish or you can not fly as a bird Truth.

I Stand on Truths seen in Nature and on Natural Law, I stand on it and I will fall with it.

But you have not disclosed your own Truths and neither are you willing to commit yourself to Any Certain Ground nor do you wish to stand or fall by anything.

So how can we know that what you say is True and it should be acted upon?

And I had commited myself to answering whatever reasonable question you may profer but you are not willing to disclosed your own grounds of standing for testing and verification as you wish to do to me.

For clearly we have opposing grounds, I Believe in the Most High, Creator of All, whom we call God, including all that represent Him, you believe in big-bang (I think, for you said so to another person)

So you have a case against me, I have a case against you.

On what basis of Truths are we going to measure the validity of our cases, for the basis must be upon Truths, Natural Truths, Seen and Proven by Nature, (Like if you walk into the sea until you the water covers your natural head, for one hour, you shall die Truth) Not Lies and Imaginations and conjectures which we have seen have killed people or put them in trouble.

I would have raised up a thread challenging you directly but I can see that you do not positively and directly answer a question put to you eg if i asked what is your name? Instead of answering " My name is Susan, nnenna etc, You shall answer "what is my name or what do you want to do with my name or some other evasive and counter response.

If you you are using this thread to practice evasive maneuvers, you've done a great job and there is nothing to be gained in arguing with you.

But I think you are doing more than play evasion but you are also trying to show the weak strength of your conviction by hiding and preventing your weaknesses from being challenged, which itself, is the Proof of Weakness for it is Seen, A True Strong Man Opens Himself to Challenge Both Weakness and all like Goliath did BUT a fake and false "strong" man only shows his strength and hides his weakness, THUS, HE IS WEAK!

That is the difference between I together with the All Mighty and weak you.

Whilst We Are Always Ready for a Challenge Anywhere, Anytime, day or night you have to adequately prepare ensuring that the circumstance is favourable to you (meaning there should be some chances to cheat and play unfair).

For your convictions can never be established on a fair fight, which is why you are not willing to commit, even when I have clearly asked you to lay the rules of engagement, so that I would show Nairaland, that your convictions are founded on a Lie and not On Truths!

But you love to make a contention out of a contention and in the end, many words fly all over the place and nothing is resolved.

I am sorry I do not participate in vain arguments and arguments to eternity.

For if you asked me, bonafide, what is my name, I would clearly answer you Dtruthspeaker.

Is it by Natural Truths like that popular Mountain we call Mount Everest in the place we call Asia Truth?
or is it by speculative and Test Tube standards of truth like saying in the next 10 years a woman can be the president of America?

Tamaratonye5:

. This is hands down the most incoherent rant I've ever witnessed yet on any of the countless online fora, lol. Your rant about my name being the icing on the cake. The name is right there (Tamaratonye), glaring and not hiding unlike your god, wtf are you blathering about? A word of criticism if I may, unless you were being ironic, Dtruthspeaker is about as unsuitable a pseudonym as I could imagine for you. Have you considered Dblindpreacher? It seems more apropos to your posts.

As per the highlighted - yes you do, and that is the standard expected by the one who is not convinced. You just don't like it when atheists request more than just "gotta have faith" because, let me tell you: deep down inside, you know there is zero evidence of a god.

But in the interests of fair play, if we’re talking about truth-values of assertions, and their conversion into true or false postulates, there are two currently known reliable method applicable to said assertons, viz:

[1] Error free derivation in a relevant formal system (see, for example, various subsets of pure mathematics);

[2] Correspondence with observational data (see, for example, the physical sciences).

If you want to bring a different methodology into the arena, you have to establish that said methodology is reliable first, before demanding that we accept it. Failure to do so will simply result in much ridicule aimed at your direction.

It also became problematic when you already exposed your agenda to an embarrassing extent below:


As someone who paid attention in chemistry class, I resent your implication that experiments in test tubes fail to meet rigorous standards in this matter.

Summary: You are just afraid of the failure of your assertions to meet the relevant criteria, so you’re seeking in advance to skew the operation of the arena of discourse by handing special privileges to your assertions.

pauloskie38:
HOW would you define faith? Some equate it with blind belief. Influential American essayist and journalist H. L. Mencken once called faith “an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.”

The Bible, in contrast, describes faith as being neither blind nor illogical. God’s Word says: “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.”​—Hebrews 11:1.

Given the different opinions about faith, let us consider the answers to the following questions:

• How is the Bible’s definition different from what many refer to when they talk about faith?

• Why is it vital that we develop the kind of faith that the Bible describes?

• How can you build strong faith?

A Title Deed and Solid Evidence

At the time of the writing of the Bible book of Hebrews, the Greek term translated “assured expectation” was commonly used. It often appeared in business documents and carried the idea of a guarantee of future possession of something. Therefore, one reference work suggests that Hebrews 11:1 could be translated: “Faith is the title-deed of things hoped for.”

If you have ever bought an item from a reputable company and then waited for it to be delivered, you have exercised that type of faith. The sales receipt in your hand gave you reason for faith in the company from which you bought the item. In a sense, that receipt was your title deed, your guarantee that you would receive what you purchased. If you had lost the receipt or had thrown it away, you would have lost the proof of your claim of ownership. Similarly, those who have faith that God will fulfill his promises are guaranteed to receive what they hope for. On the other hand, those who do not have faith, or who lose it, are not entitled to receive the things God promises.​—James 1:5-8.

The second expression at Hebrews 11:1, translated “evident demonstration,” carries the idea of producing evidence that contradicts that which only appears to be factual. For instance, the sun appears to revolve around the earth​—rising in the east, moving through the sky, and setting in the west. However, evidence from astronomy and mathematics reveals that the earth is not the center of the solar system. Once you become familiar with that evidence and accept it as true, you have faith that the earth revolves around the sun​—despite what your eyes tell you. Your faith is not blind. On the contrary, it gives you the ability to see things as they really are, not merely as they seem to be.

How Important Is Strong Faith?

This is the type of faith that the Bible encourages​—strong faith built on solid evidence, even if it requires that we adjust our beliefs. Such faith is vital. The apostle Paul wrote: “Without faith no one can please God. Anyone who comes to God must believe that he is real and that he rewards those who truly want to find him.”​—Hebrews 11:6, New Century Version.

There are many challenges to developing strong faith. But if you take the four steps discussed on the following pages, you can succeed.

jamesid29:
Interesting breakdown. Never really taught of James 1 that way.
Well done sir

MuttleyLaff:

---

---

---

"²³Jesus replied, “Why do you say ‘if you can’?
Anything is possible for someone who has faith!”
²⁴At once the boy's father shouted,
“I do have faith! Please help me to have even more.”"
- Mark 9:23-24

If I honestly go in front of my microwave and patiently wait for the Nairaland web page to load up on it. Will my faith be justified? Will I have results/answers of a Nairaland web page appear before me anywhere on the microwave?

There is little faith, there is pseudo/false faith, there is weak faith, there is ignored faith, there is having no faith, there is room for more faith, there is et cetera faith

MuttleyLaff:
Sometimes, it is good to be honest about the sort of faith one has and be humble about it too

MuttleyLaff:
What's your beef with this legitimate usage and akin to a biblical definition here now?

"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth,
for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks"
- John 4:23

Are you familiar with Hebrews Chapter 11:4-40 heroes of Faith? I am specifically talking about the famous "hall of faith" register book, hmm?Abraham et al willingness and/or preparedness to have a strong belief in God, based not on spiritual apprehension without immediate proof, but just sheer stark nakéd faith, earned him and others, a mention, a place and/or position in the greatly desired or enviable Hebrews chapter eleven "Hall of faith" or "Faith Hall of fame".

The giants in the corridor of the enviable Hebrews chapter eleven "Hall of faith" or "Faith Hall of fame" exercised one kind faith of the other that was taken by God to qualify as a semblance of righteousness acceptable to Him.

These great men and women of Hebrews chapter eleven "Hall of faith" or "Faith Hall of fame" didnt have the benefit of John 4:23 above, that we are enjoying but they saw far, yet none of them before they passed on, received all that God had promised, however the thief on the right hand side of Jesus on the cross saw into the future as well, believed what he perceived, so publicly acknowledged the innocence of Jesus and equally thereafter confessed the divinity of Jesus looking forward to be remembered.

Tamaratonye5:

. This is hands down the most incoherent rant I've ever witnessed yet on any of the countless online fora, lol. Your rant about my name being the icing on the cake. The name is right there (Tamaratonye), glaring and not hiding unlike your god, wtf are you blathering about? A word of criticism if I may, unless you were being ironic, Dtruthspeaker is about as unsuitable a pseudonym as I could imagine for you. Have you considered Dblindpreacher? It seems more apropos to your posts.

As per the highlighted - yes you do, and that is the standard expected by the one who is not convinced. You just don't like it when atheists request more than just "gotta have faith" because, let me tell you: deep down inside, you know there is zero evidence of a god.

But in the interests of fair play, if we’re talking about truth-values of assertions, and their conversion into true or false postulates, there are two currently known reliable method applicable to said assertons, viz:

[1] Error free derivation in a relevant formal system (see, for example, various subsets of pure mathematics);

[2] Correspondence with observational data (see, for example, the physical sciences).

If you want to bring a different methodology into the arena, you have to establish that said methodology is reliable first, before demanding that we accept it. Failure to do so will simply result in much ridicule aimed at your direction.

It also became problematic when you already exposed your agenda to an embarrassing extent below:


As someone who paid attention in chemistry class, I resent your implication that experiments in test tubes fail to meet rigorous standards in this matter.

Summary: You are just afraid of the failure of your assertions to meet the relevant criteria, so you’re seeking in advance to skew the operation of the arena of discourse by handing special privileges to your assertions.

Dtruthspeaker:
I noticed you come out here in the morning, so I am going to raise a Thread just For You, and I'll battle you there.
i give you the option of laying the Rules of Engagement. (Which you will refuse as is your practice)

Should you reverse the choice of the Rules of Engagement to me as you usually do, I thus set and Choose, All the Rules of Natural Truth, the Evidence Act, Natural Law, The Objective Ordinary Reasonable Man and Prohibition of All Fallacies of any kind, And Directly Answering Reasonable Questions put forward to you in a Positive way that Resolves the Question eg what is your name? Answer= my name is Tamaratonye (which you hate doing).

Ehen, no after-thoughts and You Must stay online to proceed with the argument expenditiously.

Put forth your own Rules of Engagement that I may meet you therein. (Even this one, argument go still enter am )

Thank God tomorrow na weekend so she no go get reason to dey talk only once a day like malaria medicine.

MuttleyLaff:
Due to operating in a different time zone. When its 7:55am where you are, it is 3:55am, where Tamaratonye5 is

Tamaratonye5:
Please work on the manner in which you quote users. It's grating and distasteful having to copy your posts and paste them to your name
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What interpretation, pray tell Atheism is defined as "without belief" in god. Has naught to do with evolution, thus it makes no claim on it. That's just a despicable strawman you've fabricated to debunk an imaginary argument. Not new though, and judging from subsequent posts, I've noticed it's a pattern you and your friends will be willing to continue to heckle me with, for as long as it need be, to avoid the crux of the matter here: providing concrete objective evidence for your deity of choice


Unlike creationism, evolution is an established scientific fact. Creationism is mere subjective pseudo science fantasy by theists, that hasn't even been asserted as true by the scientific community before the theists start trotting it out as "scientific" unjustifiably


Logic is inferential. It does not always demonstrate objective truth


Precise? Look at the variety of species that have lived and died on this planet. All their shapes, sizes, and colors are the result of cumulative random mutations. Whether those mutants survive and prosper as new species depends on equally random events affecting the climate and landscape, as well as the emergence or extinction of other species of plants and animals.

How precise was the meteor that wiped out most of the dinosaurs? Why did your ancestors and mine survive the Black Death, smallpox, cholera, and the Spanish flu? Were they designed to survive by god, or just genetically or geographically lucky?


As far as I can tell, no one here has made the above conclusion. There is no algorithms in evolution. It is binary, you die or survive based on the environment around you.


And that’s a false dichotomy. The options for emergence and development of life on this planet are not abiogenesis + evolution, or a creator god. And BTW, evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. It explains the development and diversity of life.

The options are abiogenesis (life from non-life through chemical means) + evolution, or something else that we have not yet discovered.

The truth or falsity of evolution has nothing to do with the existence of god/s. So that's also a non-sequitur.

You do not get to sneak your god in without evidence. If science is wrong, and has been wrong all along, the default position is "We don’t know." Wait a minute That IS the position science currently holds! You are not talking about evolution, you are talking about cosmology

Evolution is not cosmology.

Tamaratonye5:
That actually rhymes, lol

That sounds hot . Are you suggesting a romantic interlude for one, hmmmm?***

Oh yeah, the obligatory stab at the theory of evolution; firmly establishing yourself as a crackpot, lol.

The entire scientific world disagrees with you, as does all the objective evidence. This also includes Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, and a world leader in genetics, and he is a born again christian. Now despite his religious beliefs being based on risible unevidenced guff, his scientific credential are beyond repute, so this rather destroys your dishonest guff here.

That would be nature with untold ubiquitous suffering from disease and predation? Your rhetoric is painfully and obviously nonsensical here as it is elsewhere.

I use a term of reference that is not determined by a "god". Question: If your "god" declared that slavery was moral, would you also accept that slavery is moral?

In the interests of fair play, my position is that any form of slavery, including indentured servitude, is immoral.
My bubble isn't bursted. In fact, this is a compliment of the highest order. Thanks a lot.

Sorry to burst yours though, but that is a theistic claim, not an atheistic one. [MuttleyLaff]

Tamaratonye5:
Oh I think your post has pulled that rug from under every atheist viewing this thread.

Not one word of that is objective evidence, it’s just vapid rhetoric.

Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation. You’re making up errant nonsense, and simply tacking the word logic to it, and you clearly haven’t even the most basic grasp of what logic is. Let alone understand it’s methods, including recognising and avoiding known logical fallacies, like the argument from assertion fallacy you seem determined to use to death in your posts

Again you should start by actually looking up the definition of logic, as you’re embarrassing yourself, and faith is utterly useless in validating claims or beliefs, as there is quite literally nothing one could not believe using faith. As I keep asking, if you believe something without any objective evidence, or based on faith alone in other words, then what is your criteria for disbelieving anything?

I don’t believe you, pleased demonstrate objective evidence for your claim.

Scroll up to see response from world leader in the field of genetics. There is no intelligence in DNA, this is another tedious unevidenced assertion. Creationism is naught but unevidenced superstitious guff, there is nothing to throw out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, about Paul:

"Faith in gods" can enter your life in many ways. It can be ingrained through childhood indoctrination or imbued through innocent wonder, or you embrace it later in life through some epiphany brought on by intense existential turmoil or some desperate circumstance. Once gained it is hard to dismiss. But, like many people experience, as I did, once the "scales fall from your eyes", and you can no longer hold on to the old truths and beliefs, its veritably impossible to return to them. Once you see the old woman in the puzzle picture you can't stop seeing her over the young woman.

YHWH, Jesus, Holy Spirit. It depends if you are a Trinitarian, Unitarian or some merge of the two. For all I know there are still Manichaeists, Docetists, Arianists out there. My brother in law identifies as a Catharist. I try to be politely inclusive, despite my own disbelief.

You already know about the claims made about the contradictions in the Bible. They have been around for centuries. I find many to be the outcome of translations, editings, redactions etcetera etcetera. Contradictions aren't necessarily indications of deceit, just error.

The fact remains there are inconsistencies all through the books of the Bible, from contradictions to glaring editorial conflicts. I would expect such for a publication with a such a long and confused history. I do not consider myself ignorant of understanding divine matters, despite my atheism, that's just more of your prejudice. Though I am no longer in thrall of the supposed universal truths claimed to be in it, I still find the Bible fascinating on many levels. I recognise there are certain passages that contain good advice and considered evident wisdom, so too does the Analects of Confucius and even the Quoran and other religious tomes. But as I value truth, I still feel it my duty to challenge beliefs of all sorts, not out of any animosity but out of hope for better understanding for both parties.

The next verse, Titus 1 16, begins "They profess that they know God". Titus is talking about hypocrites. Yes I am an atheist, but the purity Titus talks of is the purity of faith and belief. I profess none of that. Any other inference is just an intolerant pious insult.

You want me to persecute someone on the basis of their name?

I have evidences of various kinds and from diverse sources that point to the suggestion that Paul subverted the Christian faith and some of his writings reveal his resentments for Peter and the Jerusalem apostles that do not reflect brotherly love, but rather jealousy and bombast. If the two resolved their differences I am inclined to think it would mostly be due to concessions Peter made, as per 2 Peter where he encourages the reading of Paul’s epistles with a passing note on their difficult content. I note Paul makes no mention of Peter in 2 Timothy. That they both were in Rome when they were executed, there is no record I am aware of that suggests they "preached together" as is claimed on some theist site. I admit to no religious faith but that sort of faith is not a reliable tool for reaching the truth, it only propagates determination not to be swayed from the dogmatic concept of "absolute truth".

My real purpose is to ask how certain professing Christians are that they are following the true teachings of Christ. Can they be absolutely certain Paul did not dishonestly subvert Jesus’s insistence to observe the Mosaic laws. On the face of it Paul's writings only served the purposes of making Jesus's teaching more attractive for the squirmish tastes of Gentile men ("Cut off the end of their what??!!) and Gentile gourmets (but I love oysters!), so how are these concessions are compatible with the god of Abraham and consistent with a imperative belief in him? It just seems like one of the greatest marketing ploys of all time and one of the most successful cons ever. Frankly I think the Essenes, who still exist, are probably a closer fit to what might have been the original teachings of Jesus.

I don't care to comment on whether Paul was damned or not, I've certainly never said I hated him as you suggest. I have describe him a pyschopath (a non judgemental psychological condition, like depression), a sufferer of TLEs (temporal lobe epilepsy, another medical condition), a liar (arent we all? see the plank in my eye?) a manipulator (passive aggressive or just aggressive or both?) and an narcissist (I have dealt with several diagnosed as such, the bona fide ones reject the notion that they are). There’s not much reason there for me to hate him; he hasn’t subverted any faith of mine. I have friends that display these traits, but they've had hard lives and I cut them slack. I see Paul more of a human victim, as much as I see Judas a victim. None the less I maintain Judas betrayed Jesus and Paul subverted his message and for this Christians resent me.

I really do have a friend named Atilla. He's six foot five and an exceptionally kind human being. I feel no need to take anything out on him. He is no Hun
***Maybe I did learn some from MuttleyLaff after all. "hmmmm?.. sounds really sexy lmao

MuttleyLaff:
The Harry Potter books are fantasy novel written works. There's nothing J. K. Rowling imagined in her series of fantasy books, that is not in the Bible, there are witch(es)/wizard(s). Now, J. K. Rowling, being a lifelong Catholic, it is obvious, she's delved into the realms of fantasy, writing imaginative fiction that she knows are impossible and/or improbable.

MuttleyLaff:
Stop the unnecessary pseudo substance showing off, but please stay within the circa 6000 years biblical A&E account

MuttleyLaff:
You dont even know when and how to correctly use "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam"

MuttleyLaff:
Creationism, is not supported by a shred of objective evidence, you say. Is that indeed so?.

What kick started evolution then?. Who and/what is the Brain, Scientist, Creator, Architect, Developer, Painter, Artist et cetera behind evolution and creation?

MuttleyLaff:
There was no perfection, as to be perfect, means unable to improve any further. Only God is Good. Only God is perfect. For crying out loud, A&E were a finished article, they weren't perfection or perfect.

MuttleyLaff:
By observation, we can tell that an Intelligent Mind created the universe, man, everything within, below and above the earth. It is true, that, even science supports an intelligent design (i.e. ID)

MuttleyLaff:
Whats the matter with you? I am talking representing, but you gone off on a tangent talking of interpretation. Red is the color used universally to signify danger, love, courage, strength, power et cetera. It is representing not interpretating

MuttleyLaff:
If I had remained an atheist, I wouldn't think of ever debating with theists in a self existing, incorporeal, intelligent, creator, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent supreme being I have decided doesnt not exist.

MuttleyLaff:
"Jesus said, "Thomas, do you have faith because you have seen me?
The people who have faith in Me, without seeing Me, are the ones who are really blessed!"
(i.e. Blessed are those who haven't seen Me but believe)
- John 20:29

MuttleyLaff:
Jesus, is the "self existing, incorporeal, intelligent, creator, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent supreme being" incarnate

Daejoyoung:

Well Tamaratonye.5, every ideology professes an opinion or bias, and atheism is not exempt.

Daejoyoung:
Atheism is not an ideology on the fence, rather it questions the evidence for the existence of a God or Gods.

Daejoyoung:
When theists present evidence of God as creator, the atheist then says no, there is no creator, we just evolved randomly to become what we are.

Daejoyoung:
By so doing, you are interpreting evolution and projecting your anti-theistic bias on the scientific report, no less guilty than the theist in that regard.

Daejoyoung:
Evolution only explains the process, it doesn't necessarily tell us the why, nor does the science of evolution in itself uphold or debunk the God as creator claim specifically.

Daejoyoung:
The non creationist theist says God was behind evolution, and the atheist says there was no God.

Daejoyoung:
These are all just opinions, and has nothing to do with science. There are so many atheists who tout evolution, but are damn ignorant of the evolution they yap about all day long. They think the atheists are the heroes of science and science is atheistic dogma.

Daejoyoung:
We are discussing your ideology here, and I am tired of correcting atheists on this one misunderstanding all the time, your atheistic ideology or interpretation of science does not equate to science, this goes for the theists as well.

Daejoyoung:
So when explaining these things, let us discuss our ideologies specifically.

Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Ideology
noun

1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

jamesid29:

You actually did,hence my question....But it's all good.

jamesid29:
We humans are really not rational... We all filter the world through personal bias, prejudices & worldview. Humans are capable of objective logical reasoning, that's why we can spot deficiencies in others but when push comes to shove, we mostly make decisions based on emotions and bias rather than objective reasoning regardless of education or religious affiliation.

jamesid29:
From my own experience and mine alone(so I could be wrong), whenever I get into a conversation where someone starts using words like "that's a so & so fallacy" alot, I just believe that conversation would not go anywhere... Mainly because I believe, we have already assumed a position of objective rationality(which is untrue)

Dtruthspeaker:
I noticed you come out here in the morning, so I am going to raise a Thread just For You, and I'll battle you there.

i give you the option of laying the Rules of Engagement. (Which you will refuse as is your practice)

Should you reverse the choice of the Rules of Engagement to me as you usually do, I thus set and Choose, All the Rules of Natural Truth, the Evidence Act, Natural Law, The Objective Ordinary Reasonable Man and Prohibition of All Fallacies of any kind, And Directly Answering Reasonable Questions put forward to you in a Positive way that Resolves the Question eg what is your name? Answer= my name is Tamaratonye (which you hate doing).

Ehen, no after-thoughts and You Must stay online to proceed with the argument expenditiously.

Put forth your own Rules of Engagement that I may meet you therein. (Even this one, argument go still enter am )

Thank God tomorrow na weekend so she no go get reason to dey talk only once a day like malaria medicine.

So, this matter is hereby struck out for lack of cause of action and want of diligent prosecution! grin

Registrar, please call the next case!

Tamaratonye5:

Pretty sure I did not, I merely pointed out there isn’t a shred of objective evidence for any creation myth. Any other assertion is of your own construct I'm afraid.

Tamaratonye5:
I can have no problem with deities or creation since I don't believe the universe was created, and I don’t believe in any extant deity.

james29:
Really not trying to derail the thread, just want you to quickly clarify the bolded. What do you mean by the universe wasn't created?

That's why logic is necessary, it is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, in order to filter out bias and of course superstitions like religions.

Most Christians, like the ones here, don't
have a developed epistemology or dont even know zilch about their epistemology, so they come here thinking they know it all but don't realize how bad they actually embarrass themselves.

How many people on this thread care for the truth? If you are not willing to change if you discover truth is different than what you think it currently is, then you don't care for the truth.

No that’s nonsense again, there are known logical fallacies, these are called common logical fallacies if they occur in informal logic. Theists use these type of fallacies all the time, as you have done above using straw man fallacies about atheism.

There is no animosity here, I'm just here to learn. However I can't deny that it's been a shitfest thus far here. So far it's the same old same old. People assigning imaginary arguments to me, or committing strawmen by putting labels on me such as my being an evolutionist. In the midst of all the games the countless dishonest apologists present on this thread are hell bent on playing, absolutely zero, zilch, nada has been offered in terms of substance. None of them, not one, has succeeded in demonstrating objective evidence for any deity.

jamesid29:

Below is your exact statement I quoted, exactly the way I quoted it and my exact question. The whole premise was for you to clarify your statement, which could have easily been answered with a, "this was what I was tracking when I made that statement"...but your reply was on a whole different tangent. I'm not sure why you trying to pitch your tent on something that is documented.
You can check back and read your reply and guage if it was a response to my question or a response to a question you made up.
https://www.nairaland.com/5997053/what-faith-really/2#91968803

Splitting (also called black-and-white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism.[1] The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual's actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground).
WIKIPEDIA

jamesid29:
It seems you missed the point I was making. Basically I pointing out the realities of human nature from behavioural science but again you seem to have sliced and misconstrued it for an avenue for a "stick it to the Christain" reply.

That's why logic is necessary, it is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, in order to filter out bias and of course superstitions like religions.

jamesid29:
I pretty sure you can't point out any of my statement that is a straw man fallacy about atheism. You just made that up or assumed it.

Tamaratonye5: So far you’ve offered only ad hominems (in spades), subjective claims, and logical fallacies

Tamaratonye5: I will talk with him again. He is waiting for me in my room

Tamaratonye5: "code" in DNA is a chemical process. Not an intelligent acting agent, Imagine what it could create if it were intelligent. We would all have abilities like Savants. We would all look like super models

Tamaratonye5: Crystals, ocean waves, sand dunes, shells, (Have you heard of the golden ratio? ) all of art and all of nature… oops!Sorry! You were trying to be rhetorical. He he he … I thought you were actually asking a question. Silly me!

Tamaratonye5: I still think that if I can trash Evolution, my God will be the default position.

Tamaratonye5: it has been validated by the scientific method,

Tamaratonye5: species evolution is a demonstrable scientific fact based on overwhelming objective evidence

Tamaratonye5: including peer reviewed work and a global scientific consensus based on all the objective evidence, even the largest most powerful church on earth has long ago stopped denying the fact of species evolution

Tamaratonye5: Especially since as I pointed out Francis Collins is a born again christian, and is on record as stating that he wishes it (species evolution) were not an objective fact, but the evidence from DNA shows it is.

Tamaratonye5: [2] Why do you disingenuously keep trying to reverse the burden of proof? If you can demonstrate any objective evidence for any creation in nature then do so plainly, and desist from these fallacious argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies.

Tamaratonye5: However, and as I have pointed out, even were evolution not a scientific fact,

Tamaratonye5: ..in the theory of evolution

Tamaratonye5: and faith is utterly useless in validating claims or beliefs, as there is literally nothing one could not believe using faith. I keep asking, if you believe something without any objective evidence, or based on faith alone in other words, then what is your criteria for disbelieving anything?

Tamaratonye5:

DrLiveLogic:
The old fallacy

DrLiveLogic:
"intelligence is perfection", which we contravene in our own IDs. You consider yourself intelligent, yet never made a perfect thing.

DrLiveLogic:
Learn girl, intelligence is simply defined pattern towards purpose, god is perfection.

DrLiveLogic:
Not really. Just think it's courtesy to remind you, you really aren't standing on any logical ground but in denial.

DrLiveLogic:
Evolutionist's dreamland. Already challenged you to substantiate evidences, so they're debunked again.

DrLiveLogic:
can never prove trans-speciation,

DrLiveLogic:
Dear logic criminal, Tantrum, hereby sentenced to.... for contravention of section #9 and #10 of her logic laws.
Plus, guess what? this is how many religious doctrines became too and well, so much for that.

DrLiveLogic:

Tamaratonye5: However, and as I have pointed out, even were evolution not a scientific fact,

Fine. Taken you admit to having no objective evidence for the evo rhetoric.

DrLiveLogic:
My point of inviting you my thread was to show all so called "objective evidence" of current evo rhetoric is subjective

DrLiveLogic:
As I said, the burden to find truth lies on you solely.

DrLiveLogic:
Proof of faith, as said before, lies not in logic

DrLiveLogic:
Logic confirmed existence beyond its domain, across the Singularity

DrLiveLogic:
None should believe anything without objective evidence or tangibility

DrLiveLogic:
Valid questions on existence and beyond logic, to be answered, in the quest of faith:

DrLiveLogic:
1. Does the Singularity not point to an existence beyond the current coordinate system and material plane?

DrLiveLogic:
2. Does it not show the limitation of current logic to account for existence beyond?

DrLiveLogic:
3. Isn't the material plane considered real firstly because we are in some way conscious of it ever before logic?

DrLiveLogic:
4. Is logic then the absolute determinant of existence or derived from a precedent viz. consciousness?

DrLiveLogic:
5. Are there other modes of consciousness asides our physical senses?

DrLiveLogic:
6. Is this material plane all we're conscious of?

DrLiveLogic:
7. If ID is evidenced in human intelligence

Tamaratonye5:
No one asserted that we were intelligent. You asserted DNA was intelligent. If it was, wouldn’t it intelligently design more intelligently? It is a chemical process and nothing more

Since you’re the one denying a global scientific consensus based on over 160 years of the most intense scientific scrutiny

As I already said the talkorigins TO website has a massive database of scientific evidence for evolution. It also has a massive database of creationist propaganda that science has debunked, most of them you have used here.

FYI, I'm not an atheist because I believe in evolution. That's your own Dreamland.

I'm an atheist because of the lack of evidence for god/s
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

The fossil evidence alone establishes this

SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE ESTABLISHED BY OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, THEY CAN ONLY BE FALSIFIED BY THE SAME. WHEN A CREATARD GETS A NOBEL PRIZE FOR FALSIFYING EVOLUTION I WILL ACCEPT IT, BUT CREATIONISM WILL REMAIN AN UNEVIDENCED SUPERSTITIOUS MYTH.

What singularity?

Even your title seems confused. If something is valid, isnt it meant to be logical?How are questions valid if they are beyond logic, and therefore by definition irrational, that’s such an obviously errant title I want to laugh out loud.

Why on earth would any rational person want to pursue a quest for faith as well, faith is utterly useless for validating claims, as there is literally nothing you could not believe using faith, as I have already explained.Rubbish, you don’t half talk drivel. The best method we have for validating claims is the scientific method
And as I said there is literally nothing you cannot believe using faith. So yes of course faith based beliefs are irrational by definition. The efficacy of logic is manifest, as is the uselessness of faith. As I keep asking what is your criteria for disbelief if you are prepared to believe using faith?

logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, in order to remove bias and flawed reasoning.

Cheers
Tamaraton Trinus Tantrum

DrLiveLogic:

My bad. I asserted you were intelligent. If you have no intelligence, then you're right, DNA has none. Fits perfectly with your origins theory of intelligence stemming from non-intelligence, that we design AI.
DNA that writes code for the compiler that encodes itself, what AI seeks to achieve with deep learning, has no intelligence in Tantrum's world. I'd like to meet you in your world. Smh.


Don't you wish this would make a theory irrevocable, Mrs scientific method?
Most intense what LMAO. You should study the many revisions and modifications of the theory.


Cc: Daejoyoung
Smh. Laughable when someone suggests TO for critical study on evolution, and shows you're neither a core scientist nor ready for in-depth analysis but only gathering unfiltered superficial info. You probably occupy yourself with other things leaving you little time for such although that wouldn't be an excuse for a matter as important as your soul's security. For your sake, here's the fastest of the critiques on TO I found not that I propose creationism for that. Refute TO
TO is pure propaganda and uses counters against flimsy and outrageous creationist arguments to validate its argument, mere strawmanning, without presenting important info on the uncertainties and limitations of the evo theory but many half-truths instead. Prolly why it seems obsolete.

Again there's nothing like overwhelming evidence/proof for evo rhetoric but only many findings with subjective interpretations. Such misconception stems from a lack of training in the scientific method.
Again, evolutionists consistently shift the goalpost by alternating the definition of evolution between mere adaptation and trans-speciation, an interpolation from prejudice, to make findings like the fossil record support their rhetoric, as is not the case.
You really should go do a thorough study on evolution from both sides of the arguments. That alone will help you understand why Darwinian evo is not proven but only accepted by a camp.
Such is not the case with logically deduced facts and laws which every scientist must accept without argument.


FYI, stale and overused.


What you tell yourself to feel better. You're an atheist cause you don't want to ever investigate the validity of creator for loosing your freedom and having accountability. If you believe in your emotions, conscience etc. you can't see or touch, you can relate with creator that exact way. Faith is a more tangible substrate than these. The question is if you're willing to.


The fossil record establishes common descent and adaptation not trans-speciation.


I almost applauded you but oops!, missed a spot. The interpretation by evolutionists will have to first be established by the findings without prejudiced interpolation, letting facts interpret themselves.


Since you don't know about it, don't bother. Just know that science has proposed a point where our current space-time logic disappears.


Laugh less, when in ignorance, I'd suggest, dear Tantrum. Validity is tied to reality/existence. Logic derives from self-evident reality and towards deduced reality. Go figure!


Faith is utterly useless if you believe it's blind belief, and well, that's blind belief too because you could find out what faith is but choose not to.
The undergirding yardstick of reality is consciousness. Whatever we're conscious of is self-evident reality. Learn girl, these are not derived by logic but from which we develop logic to deduce derived realities. This is why faith, like matter, isn't to be logically deduced. A little baby knows mama is real because it's aware of her not because of systematic deductions. We similarly know the universe is real, not by logic but by our consciousness of it.
So the substantiality of faith, like our universe, is in consciousness not in logic. The question must be 'how to contact'. It is not about believing any claims but about contacting a tangible substrate. If one weren't and is busy convincing himself of anything, he is still faithless.


You're well informed but need training to correctly apply it.

Let us now reconsider the ten questions of which for reasons best known to you, you avoided the all important final three.
Ten questions
I cannot answer these questions for anyone but any who would understand faith must answer these himself and then ask how faith is to be contacted, like his emotions are.
Tantrum, over to you, you determine if we go further, chit-chat and tirades will not pay. If you ask the right questions, I can answer, else...


Trinus now? Let me in on your obsession with three, my dear.

Tamaratonye5:

You don’t know what fallacy means clearly. But then you don’t know what a scientific theory is either, so pretty typical for a creationist. I long ago stopped being surprised at how ignorant religion keeps many of its adherents.


No one asserted that we were intelligent. You asserted DNA was intelligent. If it was, wouldn’t it intelligently design more intelligently? It is a chemical process and nothing more.


You’re an arrogant clown, especially considering your posts contain some of the most ignorant idiotic drivel I've seen on this particular website. Asserting your god is perfect does not make it so. You don’t get to assert a god into existence. Provide evidence or go away.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?


Since you’re the one denying a global scientific consensus based on over 160 years of the most intense scientific scrutiny, and all to justify an absurd unevidenced belief in a deity from a bronze age superstition. The hilarity of a creatard accusing anyone of denial is palpable.

You haven’t got a clue of what logical ground any atheist is standing on. Your inane responses and idiotic assertions are evidence of this.


OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

As I already said the talkorigins website has a massive database of scientific evidence for evolution. It also has a massive database of creationist propaganda that science has debunked, most of them you have used here.

FYI, I'm not an atheist because I believe in evolution. That's your own Dreamland. I'm an atheist because of the lack of evidence for god/s

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?


The fossil evidence alone establishes this


Do you care to translate that gibberish into a coherent sentence, Hmmm?


So we can add English to the expanding list of things you don’t understand.


Your point is to deny an accepted scientific fact that contradicts the risible creation myth form your bronze age superstition, and of course the reason is because you can’t offer any objective evidence for your deity, or any creationist propaganda. Here’s a clue for you, because I know how slow creatards are…

SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE ESTABLISHED BY OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, THEY CAN ONLY BE FALSIFIED BY THE SAME. WHEN A CREATARD GETS A NOBEL PRIZE FOR FALSIFYING EVOLUTION I WILL ACCEPT IT, BUT CREATIONISM WILL REMAIN AN UNEVIDENCED SUPERSTITIOUS MYTH.


Rubbish, you don’t half talk drivel. The best method we have for validating claims is the scientific method, which creatards risibly think they can cherry pick when it contradicts their superstitious myths.


And as I said there is literally nothing you cannot believe using faith. So yes of course faith based beliefs are irrational by definition. The efficacy of logic is manifest, as is the uselessness of faith. As I keep asking what is your criteria for disbelief if you are prepared to believe using faith?


What singularity? You don’t have even the most basic grasp of logic, that is abundantly clear.


Yet here you are, arguing for your intangible deity. So please demonstrate some objective evidence for your deity. I keep asking, but you just keep posting the same subjective rhetoric and logical fallacies.


Even your title seems confused. If something is valid, isnt it meant to be logical?

How are questions valid if they are beyond logic, and therefore by definition irrational, that’s such an obviously errant title I want to laugh out loud. Why on earth would any rational person want to pursue a quest for faith as well, faith is utterly useless for validating claims, as there is literally nothing you could not believe using faith, as I have already explained.


Again, what singularity?


Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, textbook.


I have no idea what that means sorry, is it from dungeons and dragons?


I've probably stated this a thousand times here already, but: logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, in order to remove bias and flawed reasoning.


I don't know. If you do, please demonstrate some objective evidence for this. Also why have you phrased this as a question?


Again what are you taking about, is this a reference to dungeons and dragons only I have never played it?


Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that it is? Or has that just become your usual incoherent fallacious rhetoric?
---------------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Trinus Tantrum

dragonflyy:
[s][/s]
she said she's not an evolutionist but you want to turn her into one by fire by force
Oya, see me here: I don't accept Evolution and I also don't believe in gods
Stop being a coward and provide evidence for the god you believe in instead of reversing the burden of proof
Bloody coward

dragonflyy:

Egbon free that small boy

He is asking you to defend an argument you never made. I wonder why you're even indulging him.

Judas1X:

Been observing your pitiful exchange with that lady with trepidation for your ability to say a thousand words at once without addressing a single point. Let me get this out of the way: Im not an evolutionist, biologist, physicist, or familiar with any of the natural sciences, so I don't get involved in those evolution back and forths that seemingly gives you erections.

Going through your posts, I can't see anywhere you managed to show a tiny little bit of evidence for all the thousand and one claims you have deployed on this thread. I don't care for your meaningless questions that utilize ad ignorantiam fallacies to validate themselves as Tamara rightly pointed out. Anyways, I just have two questions for you

If evolution is indeed wrong (let's assume for the sake of argument though), how does that evidence creationism?

Since you claim things lacking objective evidence should not be believed, why then do you believe in god? If you insist god exists, what objective evidence can you present to prove he exists?

DrLiveLogic:




Now you come to her rescue? You don't have to lie. Quit being a jerk and acting like a kid while you're at it if you really want a discussion with me, feigning you can't read. If you want to talk to me, act mature at least. I've been the one asking her that if she'll forget her defence of evolution, we can get into the more important route where faith is found but no, she keeps trying to claim it's fact and proven. She even unmeritoriously tries to deny ID. So what you trying to pull?
Well again, if you'd simply read, it's not my job or anyone else's to provide you with evidence for faith. The burden of proof lies on you solely. You wanna know about faith? You can try answering sincerely the ten questions, then as I've said a thousand times, ask the right question, on how to contact faith. If you want, you can then try what I would profer for yourself or abandon mission, your choice. Faith will only be found in the same domain your emotions and conscience are found, though superior in tangibility, not in the physical.

DrLiveLogic:
If you want to talk to me, act mature at least

Tamaratonye5 even unmeritoriously tries to deny ID. So what you trying to pull?

Well again, if you'd simply read, it's not my job or anyone else's to provide you with evidence for faith. creator put the innate ability in all his creation, else he would not be blameless in demanding individual accountability. The burden of proof lies on you solely. You wanna know about faith? You can try answering sincerely the ten questions, then as I've said a thousand times, ask the right question, on how to contact faith. If you want, you can then try what I would profer for yourself or abandon mission, your choice. Faith will only be found in the same domain your emotions and conscience are found, though superior in tangibility, not in the physical.

_{I don't care for your meaningless questions that utilize ad ignorantiam fallacies to validate themselves as Tamara rightly pointed out. Anyways, I just have two questions for you}

If evolution is indeed wrong (let's assume for the sake of argument though), how does that evidence creationism?

Since you claim things lacking objective evidence should not be believed, why then do you believe in god? If you insist god exists, what objective evidence can you present to prove he exists?

Judas1X:
Imma add this one as well: Since you value faith so much, on what basis do you reject superfluous claims, OR are you just content believing anything they tell you based on faith?

Given that you have been attacking the poor lady for evidence of evolution, how can you claim she's denying intelligent design when you've offered nothing to back up your claims, eh, O ye failed doctor of Logic??!

Bros abeg attend to this:
I don't care for your meaningless questions that utilize ad ignorantiam fallacies to validate themselves as Tamara rightly pointed out. Anyways, I just have two questions for you

DrLiveLogic:
Read the above.

DrLiveLogic:

Bro, don't take me in endless circles like Tamaratonye5. For the umpteenth and more time. Faith is not 'trying to believe' anything at all, it is a substrate of its own to be contacted.

Throw away what you've ever believed about faith and come to this understanding.

ID is self-evident truth, if we believe AI is intelligence at all. What are neural networks asides a replication of the brain? And if NN is considered intelligence as it replicates our brains. Do the math. It's not up to me to prove it nor will I try to.

Really? This is coming from the same boy who keeps riding Tamara for not presenting objective evidence for evolution? Do you know what the terms "objective" and "evidence" connote. These are bare claims nau. My brother And to think you've been heckling Tamara like a prepubescent girl having menstrual cramps. Bwaaaaa haaaaa haaaaa. Such an insufferable clown. Please attempt the question again and prove you shouldn't have ended up as a native doctor rather than a logician.

And I should care about yours for some reason. Well, too bad bro. Whatever you believe or don't believe doesn't affect me.

Do have a nice day.

It has not come to that nau
Young Man, if you they write exam, you go submit empty script con expect marker to mark am for you? Come on now, be a diligent young lad and attempt the questions I asked or forever be labelled a cowardly hypocrite or a swollen pussy. Nay, the ULTIMATE swollen pussy

DrLiveLogic:
My bad. I asserted you were intelligent. If you have no intelligence, then you're right, DNA has none.

DrLiveLogic:
DNA that writes code for the compiler that encodes itself, what AI seeks to achieve with deep learning, has no intelligence in Tantrum's world. I'd like to meet you in your world. Smh.

DrLiveLogic:
Cc: Daejoyoung

DrLiveLogic:
shows you're neither a core scientist nor ready for in-depth analysis

DrLiveLogic:
Again there's nothing like overwhelming evidence/proof for evo rhetoric

DrLiveLogic:
What you tell yourself to feel better.

DrLiveLogic:
You're an atheist cause you don't want to ever investigate the validity of creator

DrLiveLogic:

Tamaratonye5: What singularity? You don’t have even the most basic grasp of logic, that is abundantly clear.

Since you don’t know about it, don’t bother.

DrLiveLogic:
Faith is utterly useless if you believe it’s blind belief,

DrLiveLogic:
So the substantiality of faith, like our universe, is in consciousness not in logic

Judas1X:

The truth is nasty, my dear failed logician. And the truth here is you want to bait us into considering your position using questions that appeal to ignorance instead of persuading us through the objective evidence. We see through the bullshit you've drowned yourself in, and if you think we'll jump into that pool of shit to play with you, you must be off your meds