(November 19, 2016 at 4:31 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(November 19, 2016 at 3:42 pm)The Joker Wrote: The cosmological argument is "a" evidence for God.

Rubbish.

A logical argument is not evidence for the existence of a god.

You can't 'logic' something into existence.

The CA commits several fallacies that make it invalid.

Usually, depending on the version of the CA, these fallacies are:

Affirming the consequent.
Fallacy of composition.
Fallacy of equivocation.

"You can't 'logic' something into existence." 

I know you can't but you can "use logic" to prove the existence of God.

Think about it.

Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.

(November 19, 2016 at 5:36 pm)The Joker Wrote:

(November 19, 2016 at 5:30 pm)operator Wrote: jesus christ these people make me want to shoot myself.

So you are a Theistic Satanist?

No, what makes you think that? I've never actually met or even heard of a person who says they're a theistic Satanist... I don't even think theistic Satanism is a thing.

(November 19, 2016 at 5:44 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(November 19, 2016 at 5:09 pm)The Joker Wrote: Since we started with finches and the finches stayed finches, isn’t this just an example of variety within a kind?

Well sort of, so long as the kind in question is the living kind.  Sea squirts become vertebrates over eons.  Sea vertebrates become vertebrates of the land, air and canopy somewhat more quickly.  And those of the canopy become those typing on keyboards.  One living kind becomes what we call another living kind by adapting to ever changing environmental conditions.  Nothing teleological about it, could definitely have been otherwise but boy what a story.  But stick to your bible stories if you prefer those to the book of life unfolding all around you.

One of the most glaring problems with the evolutionary story of vertebrates is the lack of transitional forms. As in other fossil groups, major phyla appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. Fact mutations aren't evolution. Is there any observed case where random chance events created complex molecules with enormous amounts of information like that found in DNA or RNA? If not, then why should we assume it happened in the past?

---

(November 19, 2016 at 5:45 pm)operator Wrote:

(November 19, 2016 at 5:36 pm)The Joker Wrote: So you are a Theistic Satanist?

No, what makes you think that? I've never actually met or even heard of a person who says they're a theistic Satanist... I don't even think theistic Satanism is a thing.

Are you an atheistic Satanist?

(November 19, 2016 at 6:01 pm)The Joker Wrote:

(November 19, 2016 at 5:44 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Well sort of, so long as the kind in question is the living kind.  Sea squirts become vertebrates over eons.  Sea vertebrates become vertebrates of the land, air and canopy somewhat more quickly.  And those of the canopy become those typing on keyboards.  One living kind becomes what we call another living kind by adapting to ever changing environmental conditions.  Nothing teleological about it, could definitely have been otherwise but boy what a story.  But stick to your bible stories if you prefer those to the book of life unfolding all around you.

One of the most glaring problems with the evolutionary story of vertebrates is the lack of transitional forms. As in other fossil groups, major phyla appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. Fact mutations aren't evolution. Is there any observed case where random chance events created complex molecules with enormous amounts of information like that found in DNA or RNA? If not, then why should we assume it happened in the past?

Fossils aren't the only record. DNA and the study of embryos also tells the story. They with what fossils survive the test of time -hardly something one should expect- support each other nicely. But keep repeating the mantra I highlighted if you'd rather not know the truth. Just because evolution is real doesn't mean you are required to evolve. Fingers in the ears now, get them in there good and deep.

(November 19, 2016 at 6:01 pm)The Joker Wrote: Are you an atheistic Satanist?

Well, yes, but I don't really see a need for the distinction as I've never actually heard of someone being a theistic Satanist. As I said I'm not even sure if that is a thing.

(November 19, 2016 at 6:36 pm)operator Wrote:

(November 19, 2016 at 6:01 pm)The Joker Wrote: Are you an atheistic Satanist?

Well, yes, but I don't really see a need for the distinction as I've never actually heard of someone being a theistic Satanist. As I said I'm not even sure if that is a thing.

You do know there are Satan worshipers that believes in God? Worshiping Satan is an absolute certainty of being damned.

(November 19, 2016 at 6:39 pm)The Joker Wrote: You do know there are satan worshippers that believes in God? Worshipping satan is an absolute certainity of being damned.

And that is not an argument for god's existence. Stupid people believe stupid things, after all.

(November 19, 2016 at 6:39 pm)The Joker Wrote:

(November 19, 2016 at 6:36 pm)operator Wrote: Well, yes, but I don't really see a need for the distinction as I've never actually heard of someone being a theistic Satanist. As I said I'm not even sure if that is a thing.

You do know there are satan worshippers that believes in God? Worshipping satan is an absolute certainity of being damned.

I hear him saying his user name is more about mocking your beliefs than it is anything he cares about as such.

(November 19, 2016 at 6:39 pm)The Joker Wrote: You do know there are satan worshippers that believes in God? Worshipping satan is an absolute certainity of being damned.

If there are such groups, they're not called Satanists. 'Satanist' was a word first used by early Christians to attack other Christian denominations for being heretics. The first group of people to use Satanism to describe a developed, working set of beliefs in how to interact with the world was Anton LaVey and his inner circle. Anton LaVey admits in The Satanic Bible that Satanists do not believe in any god or gods, but rather in forces of nature.

If there are people using the term "Satanist" to describe themselves as theistic individuals who worship an anthropomorphic deity called "Satan," I've never met them and I'm not sure how they're even coming to the conclusion that they are Satanists. Satanism is about individuality and getting the most out of life by pursuing personal goals and accepting yourself as a carnal being who has certain needs, wants and desires. Granted that's quite a simplification of the belief system. It's not about worshiping the devil, or anyone or thing for that matter.

Satanism is not about faith or worship but rather study. You don't become a Satanist, you read the literature and find a reflection of yourself in it and decide you will adopt this title that describes what you already are.

Hail Satan!

to whateverist: Yes a large part of me calling myself a Satanist is that I consider myself to be an opponent to all organized religion. While I'm not so outspoken about it I have no problem telling a Christian, Muslim, Jew or Buddhist why they're batshit crazy. But Satanism does also describe a set of beliefs that I happen to hold. Once again it's not about becoming a Satanist so much as reading The Satanic Bible and finding a reflection of yourself in the words you read. I would hedge my bets on saying that many more people are Satanists than who realizes it. Many people, even if they read the literature and agreed with what was written, would still probably not want to adopt the title. I happen to be content with adopting the title and using it to describe my beliefs.

(November 19, 2016 at 6:22 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(November 19, 2016 at 6:01 pm)The Joker Wrote: One of the most glaring problems with the evolutionary story of vertebrates is the lack of transitional forms. As in other fossil groups, major phyla appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. Fact mutations aren't evolution. Is there any observed case where random chance events created complex molecules with enormous amounts of information like that found in DNA or RNA? If not, then why should we assume it happened in the past?

Fossils aren't the only record.  DNA and the study of embryos also tells the story.  They with what fossils survive the test of time -hardly something one should expect- support each other nicely.  But keep repeating the mantra I highlighted if you'd rather not know the truth.  Just because evolution is real doesn't mean you are required to evolve.  Fingers in the ears now, get them in there good and deep.

There’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it. There is no evidence for evolution but just variations within a kind, for example there might be different types of dogs but a dog is still a dog.

---

(November 19, 2016 at 6:49 pm)operator Wrote:

(November 19, 2016 at 6:39 pm)The Joker Wrote: You do know there are satan worshippers that believes in God? Worshipping satan is an absolute certainity of being damned.

If there are such groups, they're not called Satanists. 'Satanist' was a word first used by early Christians to attack other Christian denominations for being heretics. The first group of people to use Satanism to describe a developed, working set of beliefs in how to interact with the world was Anton LaVey and his inner circle. Anton LaVey admits in The Satanic Bible that Satanists do not believe in any god or gods, but rather in forces of nature.

If there are people using the term "Satanist" to describe themselves as theistic individuals who worship an anthropomorphic deity called "Satan," I've never met them and I'm not sure how they're even coming to the conclusion that they are Satanists. Satanism is about individuality and getting the most out of life by pursuing personal goals and accepting yourself as a carnal being who has certain needs, wants and desires. Granted that's quite a simplification of the belief system. It's not about worshiping the devil, or anyone or thing for that matter.

Satanism is not about faith or worship but rather study. You don't become a Satanist, you read the literature and find a reflection of yourself in it and decide you will adopt this title that describes what you already are.

Hail Satan!

to whateverist: Yes a large part of me calling myself a Satanist is that I consider myself to be an opponent to all organized religion. While I'm not so outspoken about it I have no problem telling a Christian, Muslim, Jew or Buddhist why they're batshit crazy. But Satanism does also describe a set of beliefs that I happen to hold. Once again it's not about becoming a Satanist so much as reading The Satanic Bible and finding a reflection of yourself in the words you read. I would hedge my bets on saying that many more people are Satanists than who realizes it. Many people, even if they read the literature and agreed with what was written, would still probably not want to adopt the title. I happen to be content with adopting the title and using it to describe my beliefs.

Is this the Satanist order of the "Do What Thou Wilt"?