Atheism is unreasonable

[Esquilax]

Just for the record, I've sent a PM to His_Majesty discussing terms, so the ball's in his court now.

[Cyberman]

For some reason, my ProphetSense™ is tingling...

[SteelCurtain]

Odds? Anyone want to take odds on whether this debate really happens?

Will there be 20 pages of quibbling (I forget the UN of the guy who used to do this) over the terms, his attempts at runaround so obvious?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Every single post that has rebutted your repeated assertions in this thread.

That would depend...if you think bad rebuttals are still rebuttals, then yes, many of my posts have been rebutted

equally where you dismiss rebuttals as not rebuttals.

You mean your 'nuh-uh' rebuttal where you convincingly argued that the exodus as biblically Stated has an element of truth to it (by virtue of the dismissal of the evidence that suggests it never happened)?

There is no evidence which suggests it never happened, and if there is, I haven't seen it yet.

Don't be stupid.

The bible claims regarding the exodus have been found wanting (i.e. nothing has ever been found to give any validity). and whilst absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of absence, the total lack of any sort of evidence for those claims lends weight to the argument they are total nonsense.

The issue you have with garnering all your information about topics like evolution from apologist websites is that its always wrong.

Always?

Every apologist claim about evolution I've seen on every apologist site I've visited? Yes.

Every claim and conclusion drawn regarding evolution you've posted thus far? Yes.

'Dogs only have dogs.' I mean come the fuck along. Remember a few lines ago where I said your posts showed that your knew nothing about the topics you're talking about?

It is the truth!!! Dogs produce dogs...in other words I am saying that animals only produce what they are, not what they aren't. Unless you can prove otherwise, I don't understand why we are even having this discussion.

Again, are you ill?

You are the one using the canard of animal x only produced animal x as a way to somehow discredit evolution, when if you knew anything about the theory to which you are criticizing you'd know that evolution doesn't deny this is true. You conveniently miss out all the variables that in fact do inform the hypothesis and subsequent conclusions drawn through ToE.

Your non-rebuttal only again informs the general audience here that you know nothing about the theories you are arguing against and casually dismissing. It would actually be embarrassing for anyone, except you, it seems.

One of your main fallicious arguments in this thread has been Kalam and variants thereof.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Problem?

Yes, doubly so because you've omitted the main conclusion you've drawn from the above. Shame you can't see it, though. I can only assume you are either really, really stupid, or a POE (or indeed both).

The lack of evidence for anything in exodus being even remotely accurate is evidence for it being false (as above, no Jewish exodus from Egypt, no visit to Mt Sinai.)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If that is the case, abiogenesis is false on the fact that there isn't any evidence for it.

Evasion & False equivalence.

The fact that you think Moses lived to be hundreds and hundreds of years old speaks volumes.

I don't believe that Moses lived to be hundreds and hundreds of years old...I believe that he lived to be 123 yrs old, just like the Bible says...and judging by the fact that the oldest person alive today is 116 yrs old...I don't think an age of 123 is to far fetched.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timel...900-years/

120, actually (Deuteronomy 34:7). Still a ludicrous age for the time, but possible. Impossible for Noah and the other Patriarchs though, as above. funny that AIG has to go into the scientific uncertainty over aging and its causes, when we know things such as the shortening of Telomeres (among many other variables) contribute to the aging process.

Benetos, A. et al., (2001) "Telomere length as an indicator of biological aging the gender effect and relation with pulse pressure and pulse wave velocity", American Heart Association, 37 (2), pp. 381-385

Herbig, U. et al. (2006) "Cellular Senescence in Aging Primates", Science, 311 (5765), pp. 1257

Simon, Naomi M., et al. (2006) "Telomere shortening and mood disorders: preliminary support for a chronic stress model of accelerated aging", Biological psychiatry, 60 (5), pp. 432-435

You've made, what,40 odd posts thus far and what have you contributed; the same old tired apologist nonsense we've all heared and debunked time and time again. Change the channel already.

You haven't debunked anything until you can prove how infinity can be traversed, how life can come from nonlife, and how consciousness can come from unconsciousness.

Until then, all bark, no bite.

Not taking a position is not equivalent to taking a position of rejection.

You're the idiot making the claims/assertions and not substantiating them with anything aside more claims/assertions.

Saying "we don't know" is intellectually honest. Combining that with what we currently know, and what we theorise could have happened and then testing those theories is also intellectually honest.

Saying "Godidit", or shoehorning god into the gaps of knowledge formed by the aforementioned lack of knowledge, is lazy, intellectually dishonest, and the cornerstone of every ignorant apologist who can't be bothered to read up on what s/he's rejecting (evidenced by every post you've made thus far that has misrepresented the various scientific theories you seek to discredit).

Is there someone else we can talk to? A theist who knows what he's doing?

Don't know why you are looking for someone else..weren't you just complaining about the same stuff being presented? Yet, now you are asking for someone else? Well, what would be the difference if another theist comes in here? The same arguments will be presented.

Don't be stupid. We're looking for someone with either new arguments or, even better (the best actually), evidence to support their assertions .

The only difference will come in the actual DEFENSE of the argument. You may be used to being able to just walk all over theists who may not be as familiar with the arguments/defenses against the arguments.

Sorry Charlie, that ain't me.

Yes it is. What, you think you're different to the other guys in the AIG crowd who think because they've done a 5 minute google search they know better than people who have done millions of hours of research and have an infinitely better grasp of the principles of their field?

And before you trot out an appeal to authority fallacy, you need to recognize that before you can do that, you at least need to know the basics of the fields you're critiquing. "Dogs only make dogs" evidences, in about the most obvious and blatant way possible, that with you that is not the case.

[abaris]

Can't wait for the debate, because of the learned contributions of His Majesty. Should be a post fest for the Hall of Shame.

[Chas]

Apparently it's a 160 year old lie that has held up to 160 years of scrutiny

I don't believe that it has, and I'd like to devote an entire thread it hasn't.

Go right ahead. I will rip you a new one.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Just for the record, I've sent a PM to His_Majesty discussing terms, so the ball's in his court now.

Ill set it all up once terms are agreed

[downbeatplumb]

Can't wait for the debate, because of the learned contributions of His Majesty. Should be a post fest for the Hall of Shame.

Man with hand down trousers always feel cocky.

[Cyberman]

Woman who cook meat
And peas in same pot
Very unhygienic.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This god is alleged to be perfectly merciful; he is also alleged to have created Hell. Some conundrum, that.

I don't think omnibenovelence necessarily entails omni-mercifulness.

Nior did I say that it does. I'm drawing your attention to the fact that torturing someone for skepticism doesn't fit any definition of mercy I've seen.

Also, Aquinas and Anselm both argued that your god is the most perfect in everything. Here, you appear to be contradicting them; yet earlier in this thread you'd used one of their arguments in a post. How do you explain this inconsistency of yours?

This god is alleged to be all-knowing; he is also alleged to have created Satan to test men. Ought not an all-knowing god know the answer of the test already? And in that case, what use might he have in creating Satan -- unless he is evil himself and creates Satan in order to have a scapegoat?

God doesn't test us because he wants to know what will will do. He tests us for our own learning and understanding. If you fail the test that would be an inkling for you to say "ok, there are some areas that I need to work on"...and at the end of the day, the goal is to get better, and you get better by falling, getting back up, and learning so that when if the situation should arise again, you are better equipped in your response.

That might be the case. But in thinking this over, it comes to me that if he knows everything, including how we will respond to his tests, then we really don't have free will.

Also, why can't he just teach us, instead of forcing us to suffer in order to learn?

This god is alleged to be both perfectly good and all powerful, yet he has created cancer

Cancer and other ailment is a result of the body being once good, and now in a state of constant decay. Second law of thermodynamics.

So god didn't create cancer? He didn't create the 2LoT?

I was under the impression that he created everything.

, and doomed every human to death for the sins of the first two.

True Christians are not doomed to death...true Christians are saved from death.

No, all humans die, and that's a fact. Of course you realize that I'm talking about physical death, and you're deliberately equivocating here.

But you worship a god who has killed every huma who has ever lived, because the first two bit the apple. That is hardly a picture of perfect justice there.

This god is alleged to be omnipresent -- yet you cannot find hide nor hair of him.

Um...of course you can't hide from something/someone that is omnipresent.

Um, have you not heard the phrase "hide nor hair"? It means you can find no sign of him.

If English is not your first language, let me know, I'll be happy to write more formally if that will help your comprehension.

I could go on; ask if you see fit.

No, just quit while you are behind lol.

Behind what? You only answered one question with a modicum of sense, and even that is much more problematic than your facile answer would indicate.

Whoever those atheists were you claimed helped you hone your argument did a shitty job. The only difference between you and most Christian trolls is that you type more.

You're clearly ignorant of the fact that amino acids have been found in comets, and meteorites.

They clearly form up in nature, unless you're wanting to argue that your little god throws them everywhere and only allows them to link up into genetic codes here in 'Murrica, fuck yeah.

Seriously: go buy an education. It's absolutely worth the money.

Apparently, you need the education. I asked where did amino acids come from, and you are telling me where they are found. Reading comprehension, people.

Do you not know their consituent molecules? Would you like a class in that?

Or, if you're asking where did matter come from, it came from the singularity, which you've already had explained to you.

If you're the best he can do, your god is scraping bottom of barrel. Seriously, your "arguments" were seen on AOL 16 years ago; your "arguments" have been dismissed for decades before that; and you don't even have the philosophical basis for your belief; you're clearly engaged in ex post facto rationalization.

I am the best at what I do..and I prove it by doing it.

You're not even the best troll in this thread, kid.

If you limit yourself to "apologetics", you're necessarily limiting yourself. Engage in free thought, subject your beliefs to limitless scrutiny, and be as unforgiving of your own preconceptions as you are of those who disagree with you.
If you can.

In the words of St. Peter, when some of the disciples deserted Jesus and Jesus asked Peter was he leaving too, and Peter said "Where else will I go, you have the words of eternal life" (John 6:60-71)

Well, where else do I need to go when I am following the man that has given me the free gift of eternal life?

I'd start with using the brain you allege he gave you to fuller capacity. You belittle what you claim is his creation when you waste it in such an egregious manner.