(May 31, 2014 at 8:04 pm)Chas Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 7:35 pm)Heywood Wrote: This is nonsense.

Suppose God and Zod exist. Both can create human life. God creates human life. This would be reason enough to accept God's existence as an intelligent creator/designer of human life.

Zod's existence and actions(or in action) have nothing to do with Gods existence and action.

Your response has nothing to do with the statement. It is a complete non sequitur.

Negative Chas,

In my example God didn't need to create humans. Zod could have. The fact that God did create humans would be reason enough. If humans could have came to be naturally, but God created them anyways, the fact that God created them would be reason enough to acknowledge God as the creator of humans.

It all follows....you're just not that bright.

(May 31, 2014 at 7:55 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 7:37 pm)rasetsu Wrote: All you've done is circle back to the same flawed inference. I've already explained why this doesn't work. If all you can do is repeat yourself, then I'm done.

I don't think my way of differentiating designed from undersigned is flawed. You haven't made a convincing counter argument to me that it is. My way of differentiating certainly does not require I know the details of every intellect who might create a thing I come across. I only need to know that intellects create these things....and that nature does not. How do I know intellects create these things....by observing intellects creating them. How do I know that nature does not create these things? By observing nature and seeing that it does not. Now I could be wrong....nature could do things when I am not observing or in a position to observe...so my judgments are not 100% reliable...but nevertheless it is good way to make judgments about the world.

Show me that nature produces new lineages of life and my argument crumbles.

The root problem of your argument is that you are adding a factor for which there is no demonstrated need or evidence. Apply Ockham's razor.

The annoyingly dishonest part is your continually trying to sneak the phrase 'intelligent design' in where 'design' suffices and your dishonestly applying the label 'irreducible complexity' to things made by humans.

Those terms are not applicable to things created by people.

Your continued misuse of those terms will confirm your dishonesty and/or stupidity.

(May 31, 2014 at 8:09 pm)BrokenQuill92 Wrote: Mr. Artur you asked a question. I gave you an anwser. So is there a reason you've decided to be rude?

I'm guessing its because people on the forum decided to be rude to him....so he decided to be rude to the forum. You weren't rude to him in anyway that I can see....you just happened to be the person he was responding too the moment he was angry.

Could also be he is just a chauvinist ass.

(May 31, 2014 at 8:10 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 8:04 pm)Chas Wrote: Your response has nothing to do with the statement. It is a complete non sequitur.

Negative Chas,

In my example God didn't need to create humans. Zod could have. The fact that God did create humans would be reason enough. If humans could have came to be naturally, but God created them anyways, the fact that God created them would be reason enough to acknowledge God as the creator of humans.

It all follows....you're just not that bright.

Your response was just more word salad. God/Zod/Fraud/whatever - the statement was not about a particular god, it was any god.

Multiplying the possible gods is simply idiotic.

(May 31, 2014 at 8:15 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 8:09 pm)BrokenQuill92 Wrote: Mr. Artur you asked a question. I gave you an anwser. So is there a reason you've decided to be rude?

I'm guessing its because people on the forum decided to be rude to him....so he decided to be rude to the forum. You weren't rude to him in anyway that I can see....you just happened to be the person he was responding too the moment he was angry.

Could also be he is just a chauvinist ass.

Right, because coming here to announce that atheists are destined to burn for eternity in hell, only because they are degenerates who like to engage in immoral and unethical behavior was polite.

(May 31, 2014 at 8:21 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 8:15 pm)Heywood Wrote: I'm guessing its because people on the forum decided to be rude to him....so he decided to be rude to the forum. You weren't rude to him in anyway that I can see....you just happened to be the person he was responding too the moment he was angry.

Could also be he is just a chauvinist ass.

Right, because coming here to announce that atheists are destined to burn for eternity in hell, only because they like to engage in immoral and unethical behavior was polite.

Its not uncommon for people on this forum....even mods like esquilax and cinjin.....to start tossing out insults just because you disagree with them. After a while it gets old and you retaliate....then the gang starts jumping your shit. Maybe Artur hasn't developed a thick enough skin to be a theist willing to make arguments on an atheist forum...you have to learn to put up with a lot of people being assholes...and just take it....believe me I know.

---

(May 31, 2014 at 8:19 pm)Chas Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 8:10 pm)Heywood Wrote: Negative Chas,

In my example God didn't need to create humans. Zod could have. The fact that God did create humans would be reason enough. If humans could have came to be naturally, but God created them anyways, the fact that God created them would be reason enough to acknowledge God as the creator of humans.

It all follows....you're just not that bright.

Your response was just more word salad. God/Zod/Fraud/whatever - the statement was not about a particular god, it was any god.

Multiplying the possible gods is simply idiotic.

The necessity or lack thereof doesn't have anything to do with it. The fact that God did it would be reason enough to give Him credit for it.

(May 31, 2014 at 8:33 pm)Heywood Wrote: Its not uncommon for people on this forum....even mods like esquilax and cinjin.....to start tossing out insults just because you disagree with them.

While it's not unheard of for that to happen, the most common cause for insults of this type is frustration at having to deal with common deflection tactics - though calling them 'tactics' is often to mistake obstinacy for strategy.

(May 31, 2014 at 8:33 pm)Heywood Wrote: you have to learn to put up with a lot of people being assholes...and just take it....believe me I know.

I would comment, but it's far too easy...

(May 31, 2014 at 8:33 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 8:21 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Right, because coming here to announce that atheists are destined to burn for eternity in hell, only because they like to engage in immoral and unethical behavior was polite.

Its not uncommon for people on this forum....even mods like esquilax and cinjin.....to start tossing out insults just because you disagree with them. After a while it gets old and you retaliate....then the gang starts jumping your shit. Maybe Artur hasn't developed a thick enough skin to be a theist willing to make arguments on an atheist forum...you have to learn to put up with a lot of people being assholes...and just take it....believe me I know.

---

(May 31, 2014 at 8:19 pm)Chas Wrote: Your response was just more word salad. God/Zod/Fraud/whatever - the statement was not about a particular god, it was any god.

Multiplying the possible gods is simply idiotic.

The necessity or lack thereof doesn't have anything to do with it. The fact that God did it would be reason enough to give Him credit for it.

First demonstrate God's existence, then we can talk.

err? did you create your hair?

Would it look like you were created if you were hair?

I mean hate literalist but don't throw all common science out.

No-god damn it. the more we try and be "not them" the more just like them we become.
a Human ape hole.

Heywood,

You're intellectual dishonesty is truly amazing. You know as well as we do that ID is a ploy to get creationism taught in public schools, nothing more, nothing less. Yet still you try to defend it and rationalize it as if it had some merit of it's own. The scientific community has seen through the ploy as has (thankfully) the SCOTUS.

By all means, please continue to spew whatever crap you feel you need to in order to justify the unjustifiable. Your right to freedom of speech allows you to say as much stupid shit as you wish just as your protection to believe whatever religion you want gives you the right to believe stupid shit.

Just remember, you are a plaything here. No-one takes you seriously.