(September 11, 2014 at 1:40 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: I came here looking to have a discussion with people who feel that there is no evidence of intelligence to the design of reality and there is no evidence that an intelligence could be influencing reality. If that is not your opinion, feel free not to respond to my threads.

But that's not the language you have used.

You have said that we are 100% sure there is no intelligent designer.

Remember this? -

Quote:How about that there is no possibility there is intelligence to the design of reality?

Or that there is no possibility there is an intelligent influence interacting with our reality?

Seems pretty dogmatic to me.

Several of us explained to you that atheism is not a dogmatic position, and why.

(September 11, 2014 at 1:08 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Was that an argument? Do you disagree with something I wrote?

Do you really want me to answer that?

For starters, most of what you write, not just here but in other posts, involvds casually throwing around some buzzwords that you don't understand and claiming that makes you an expert. Wrong. Your posts are a horrible mixture of gibberish and pseudo-science mixed together and they honestly sound like something you picked up from Natural News.

If you want me to give specifics about your post, I'll need a minute to try to analize it, first.

(September 11, 2014 at 1:30 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: I am a person interested in discussing the things that I'm reading with regard to science with people who may not have the same perspective. I think that is the way to fully flesh out my own opinions.

Okay, I'll play. You have yet to demonstrate why I should take entaglement and other quantum phenomenon and apply them broadly at scales orders larger than a Planck length. If you can't demonstrate this, I cannot take seriously any of your conclusions. The fact that you ignore the scale of quantum mechanics betrays a lack of fundamental scientific understanding.

(September 11, 2014 at 1:30 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: I don't think I've done or said anything that should've offended anyone.

Other than strawmanning what we beleive.

We're funny that way.

(September 11, 2014 at 1:40 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: I apologize if I have insulted you for having a misunderstanding of your perspective. I came here looking to have a discussion with people who feel that there is no evidence of intelligence to the design of reality and there is no evidence that an intelligence could be influencing reality. If that is not your opinion, feel free not to respond to my threads.

How about you actually locate such people and argue with them, instead of coming here, and assuming that's what we believe?

Do you seriously not see how fucking rude that is?

(September 11, 2014 at 1:50 pm)TaraJo Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 1:08 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Was that an argument? Do you disagree with something I wrote?

Do you really want me to answer that?

For starters, most of what you write, not just here but in other posts, involvds casually throwing around some buzzwords that you don't understand and claiming that makes you an expert. Wrong. Your posts are a horrible mixture of gibberish and pseudo-science mixed together and they honestly sound like something you picked up from Natural News.

If you want me to give specifics about your post, I'll need a minute to try to analize it, first.

Why do you assume that I don't understand the things that I'm writing or that I'm claiming to be an expert? If you have additional knowledge that I'm not aware of, I'd like to hear it. That's why I'm here. I'm sharing what I'm learning and asking for others opinions.

(September 11, 2014 at 2:03 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Why do you assume that I don't understand the things that I'm writing

Because you're routinely wrong.

(September 11, 2014 at 2:03 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Why do you assume that I don't understand the things that I'm writing or that I'm claiming to be an expert? If you have additional knowledge that I'm not aware of, I'd like to hear it. That's why I'm here. I'm sharing what I'm learning and asking for others opinions.

See my last post in this thread and address my concern regarding Planck length.

Also OP, you should know we've dealt with every argument you've thrown our way -- dozens and dozens of times.

So far, from you I've heard the argument from design, god of the gaps, and the argument from ignorance. I'm probably missing a few more.

You come on here as though you've got something new.

Newsflash - you don't.

The only thing no theist has ever brought to the table is convincing evidence. Funny that.

(September 11, 2014 at 2:05 pm)Cato Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 2:03 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Why do you assume that I don't understand the things that I'm writing or that I'm claiming to be an expert? If you have additional knowledge that I'm not aware of, I'd like to hear it. That's why I'm here. I'm sharing what I'm learning and asking for others opinions.

See my last post in this thread and address my concern regarding Planck length.

I will, and thank you. I realize I probably shouldn't have started so many threads at once, as it's hard to keep up with all the responses (especially weeding through all of the insults).

I appreciate you actually responding with a scientific debate.

---

(September 11, 2014 at 2:06 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: Also OP, you should know we've dealt with every argument you've thrown our way -- dozens and dozens of times.

So far, from you I've heard the argument from design, god of the gaps, and the argument from ignorance. I'm probably missing a few more.

You come on here as though you've got something new.

Newsflash - you don't.

The only thing no theist has ever brought to the table is convincing evidence. Funny that.

I'm not here your benefit, I'm here for mine. I'm sorry if you've heard it before, but it doesn't negate the fact that I am still looking for honest discussion. If you're not interested in having it, don't. But why are you here?