Atheism is unreasonable

[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.