Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[Duty]

god is make believe.

We don't say schizophrenia is make believe.
  We don't say a pathological delusion or psychotic experience is make believe.  
The god delusion is no pretend 
God is not make believe.  
It's no pretend 
Ppl have been wired for potentials to have god beliefs since cave days 
This ^^ is an upgrade concept 
Science & medicine is superior to logic/philosophy

Schizophrenia, pathological delusions and psychotic experiences are not make believe, and neither is religion, nor religious beliefs - those things exist, sure as eggs is eggs. God, on the other hand (BTW - which God are we talking about here?) - No evidence for any God's existence, my dear. No evidence, nor rational.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

god is make believe.

We don't say schizophrenia is make believe.
  We don't say a pathological delusion or psychotic experience is make believe.  
The god delusion is no pretend 
God is not make believe.  
It's no pretend 
Ppl have been wired for potentials to have god beliefs since cave days 
This ^^ is an upgrade concept 
Science & medicine is superior to logic/philosophy

You’d go to a physician who didn’t believe in logic? That’s a waste of time - you don’t need a prescription for Ivermectin.

Boru

[Ghetto Sheldon]

We don't say schizophrenia is make believe.
  We don't say a pathological delusion or psychotic experience is make believe.  
The god delusion is no pretend 
God is not make believe.  
It's no pretend 
Ppl have been wired for potentials to have god beliefs since cave days 
This ^^ is an upgrade concept 
Science & medicine is superior to logic/philosophy

You’d go to a physician who didn’t believe in logic? That’s a waste of time - you don’t need a prescription for Ivermectin.

Boru 

^^ unreasonable response

---

We don't say schizophrenia is make believe.
  We don't say a pathological delusion or psychotic experience is make believe.  
The god delusion is no pretend 
God is not make believe.  
It's no pretend 
Ppl have been wired for potentials to have god beliefs since cave days 
This ^^ is an upgrade concept 
Science & medicine is superior to logic/philosophy

Schizophrenia, pathological delusions and psychotic experiences are not make believe, and neither is religion, nor religious beliefs - those things exist, sure as eggs is eggs. God, on the other hand (BTW - which God are we talking about here?) - No evidence for any God's existence, my dear. No evidence, nor rational.

It is irrational to demand evidence for a delusion.  What we should demand, IMO, is an ICD code so we can bill for Rx.   The irrationality of a delusion is not an argument against it but a condition of it

---

Science & medicine is superior to logic/philosophy

Welcome to the forum, Sheldon!

I disagree that science is superior to logic. One relies on the other. Scientists use logic all the time. They are both awesome.

Science informs philosophy by providing true premises. Logic aids science by helping us to reach accurate conclusions.

When I say science is superior to logic,  this is an opening line.  If you dispute an opening line instead of asking *how* science is superior to logic, then you're arguing against that which you don't understand.  Your response is of a defensive nature which ranks along with being irrational & willfully ignorant.
That's how easy it is to succumb to being no better than that which is confronted.    
Which is very much an intuitive response.  
Now,  take this info & start listening to my  substantiation.    
Then start practicing this dynamic with others 
The struggle is real.    REdirecting is not easy.  A refusal to take my suggestion is digging into dogmatic dynamics . We all do it.

---

OP: I don't care about any of the drivel you posted. Show me concrete evidence for god and I'll consider it.

And no one can argue a god into existence

It is unethical to demand that which doesn't exist from the incompetent.
In a professional setting where YECs belong,  insisting a YEC has BoP would be a 3rd degree felony.

---

Show me concrete evidence for god

Category mistake: asking for concrete/empirical evidence for the existence of a non-empirical being.

Your request is logically invalid

  In what universe is it rational to ask for that which doesn't exist?  IF/when there ever is evidence for a god,  a science team will announce it and CNN will cover it for a solid week at least

[vulcanlogician]

When I say science is superior to logic,  this is an opening line.  If you dispute an opening line instead of asking *how* science is superior to logic, then you're arguing against that which you don't understand. 

Okay. How is science superior to logic, then?

Your response is of a defensive nature which ranks along with being irrational & willfully ignorant.

Quick question: How would you rate yourself on a 1-10 scale of self-awareness? (10 being very self aware, and 1 being not self aware at all?)

That's how easy it is to succumb to being no better than that which is confronted.    
Which is very much an intuitive response.  
Now,  take this info & start listening to my  substantiation.    
Then start practicing this dynamic with others 
The struggle is real.    REdirecting is not easy.  A refusal to take my suggestion is digging into dogmatic dynamics . We all do it.

Could you elaborate/clarify these points? I don't think I understand any of it. But I'd also rather focus on the science/logic thing and delve into this shit afterward.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You’d go to a physician who didn’t believe in logic? That’s a waste of time - you don’t need a prescription for Ivermectin.

Boru 

^^ unreasonable response

---

I’m a most unreasonable fellow. Ask around. Oh, and before I forget, you seem a bit of a cunt.

Boru

[Ghetto Sheldon]

When I say science is superior to logic,  this is an opening line.  If you dispute an opening line instead of asking *how* science is superior to logic, then you're arguing against that which you don't understand. 

Okay. How is science superior to logic, then?
-
When there's a conflict between logic and professional practice of science & medicine,  then science/medicine rank over logic. 
In medicine, when a tactic makes a delusion worse,  the tactic is contraindicated.   This is why we atheists need to start collecting data on how badly atheists are only causing backfire.  
In a professional setting,  it is unethical to demand the delusional search for something which doesn't exist only to have their search mocked.  It would also be a 3rd degree felony.   
In science & medicine,  we don't engage with the delusional to prove ourselves superior over them.  
We  don't thrive off sociopathic kicks off the incompetent.   OUr tactics are justified by R&D.  WE have protocol & boundaries & are outcome oriented. 

Your response is of a defensive nature which ranks along with being irrational & willfully ignorant.

Quick question: How would you rate yourself on a 1-10 scale of self-awareness? (10 being very self aware, and 1 being not self aware at all?)
^^ irrelevant & off topic

That's how easy it is to succumb to being no better than that which is confronted.    
Which is very much an intuitive response.  
Now,  take this info & start listening to my  substantiation.    
Then start practicing this dynamic with others 
The struggle is real.    REdirecting is not easy.  A refusal to take my suggestion is digging into dogmatic dynamics . We all do it.

Could you elaborate/clarify these points? I don't think I understand any of it. But I'd also rather focus on the science/logic thing and delve into this shit afterward.

---

Okay. How is science superior to logic, then?
-
When there's a conflict between logic and professional practice of science & medicine,  then science/medicine rank over logic. 
In medicine, when a tactic makes a delusion worse,  the tactic is contraindicated.   This is why we atheists need to start collecting data on how badly atheists are only causing backfire.  
In a professional setting,  it is unethical to demand the delusional search for something which doesn't exist only to have their search mocked.  It would also be a 3rd degree felony.   
In science & medicine,  we don't engage with the delusional to prove ourselves superior over them.  
We  don't thrive off sociopathic kicks off the incompetent.   OUr tactics are justified by R&D.  WE have protocol & boundaries & are outcome oriented. 




Quick question: How would you rate yourself on a 1-10 scale of self-awareness? (10 being very self aware, and 1 being not self aware at all?)
^^ irrelevant & off topic




Could you elaborate/clarify these points? I don't think I understand any of it. But I'd also rather focus on the science/logic thing and delve into this shit afterward.

---

When I say science is superior to logic,  this is an opening line.  If you dispute an opening line instead of asking *how* science is superior to logic, then you're arguing against that which you don't understand. 

Okay. How is science superior to logic, then?

Your response is of a defensive nature which ranks along with being irrational & willfully ignorant.

Quick question: How would you rate yourself on a 1-10 scale of self-awareness? (10 being very self aware, and 1 being not self aware at all?)

^^ irrelevant 

That's how easy it is to succumb to being no better than that which is confronted.    
Which is very much an intuitive response.  
Now,  take this info & start listening to my  substantiation.    
Then start practicing this dynamic with others 
The struggle is real.    REdirecting is not easy.  A refusal to take my suggestion is digging into dogmatic dynamics . We all do it.

Could you elaborate/clarify these points? I don't think I understand any of it. But I'd also rather focus on the science/logic thing and delve into this shit afterward.

---

When I say science is superior to logic,  this is an opening line.  If you dispute an opening line instead of asking *how* science is superior to logic, then you're arguing against that which you don't understand. 

Okay. How is science superior to logic, then?

Your response is of a defensive nature which ranks along with being irrational & willfully ignorant.

Quick question: How would you rate yourself on a 1-10 scale of self-awareness? (10 being very self aware, and 1 being not self aware at all?)

That's how easy it is to succumb to being no better than that which is confronted.    
Which is very much an intuitive response.  
Now,  take this info & start listening to my  substantiation.    
Then start practicing this dynamic with others 
The struggle is real.    REdirecting is not easy.  A refusal to take my suggestion is digging into dogmatic dynamics . We all do it.

Could you elaborate/clarify these points? I don't think I understand any of it. But I'd also rather focus on the science/logic thing and delve into this shit afterward.

If you don't understand any of it,  Im inclined to rule you out for further discussion.

[vulcanlogician]

If you don't understand any of it,  Im inclined to rule you out for further discussion.

Bummer. I was really hoping to solve my willful ignorance problem by talking to someone smart like you.

[Angrboda]

Over/under?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Over/under?

Three days.

Boru

[Ghetto Sheldon]

Asserting atheists are arguing from evil by definition is bigotry