Materialists believe in magic

[Jorge]

I just finished reading a well-written article at the CMI site from April 2016, here:

http://creation.com/five-atheist-mir...ampaign=emails

It's about "Five Atheist Miracles". Years ago I had my own version of the same theme in which I explored more in-depth the first of these miracles - the one about the origin of the universe. [There's also the 'magical' origin of stars, but that will have to be another time]

In my own article I stated and defended the position that Materialists [which include Atheists, Humanists and even some "Christians"] are every bit as religious as any other (recognized) religious person*. In fact, if to identify the "religious" we use the criterion of "believing in something (1) in spite of not having any tangible evidence and/or, (2) that goes against demonstrable science and reason", then Materialists are as religious as, say, Snake Worshipers.

Simply and concisely, on the origin of the universe Materialists must believe that something came from absolute nothingness. This is a position that goes against demonstrable science and logic and for which they have not a single shred of tangible evidence. Yet, that is exactly what Materialists believe and they do so with a passion that may be equaled but not surpassed.

The question is thus begged, why do Materialists invoke the "our position is based on science while yours is based on religion" argument as often as they do? That too is a mystery.


*My complete thesis is that everyone - bar none - is religious.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

The question is thus begged, why do Materialists invoke the "our position is based on science while yours is based on religion" argument as often as they do? That too is a mystery.


*My complete thesis is that everyone - bar none - is religious.

We've asked you about 100x how to do science if you have to allow for unpredictable and undetectable supernatural intervention? Like every other science question you've been asked you loudly cluck and run the other way.

[Jorge]

We've asked you about 100x how to do science if you have to allow for unpredictable and undetectable supernatural intervention? Like every other science question you've been asked you loudly cluck and run the other way.

Oh look, it's Beagle Boy -- one of the "magicians" that I was referring to in the OP.

The very stupid question that you ask is a cheap Straw Man - you'll just never admit it.

God's character is EXACTLY what allows for (true) science to exist and be conducted.
"The same yesterday, today and always" is reflected in the constancy of natural laws.
Your worldview, OTOH, gives us "constancy in nature" by universal chance - a neat trick!
.
.
.
But don't be changing the subject. We were talking about the "magic" that YOU employ.
You know what I mean ... like the magic in which an entire universe appears out of NOTHING.

Kindly let us in on how (pseudo)scientists perform that trick. At least when a rabbit is
pulled out of a hat, there's a magician and a hat. How do you get an entire universe
with no magician, no hat, no ANYTHING? We anxiously wait for the revelation.......

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Oh look, it's Beagle Boy -- one of the "magicians" that I was referring to in the OP.

The very stupid question that you ask is a cheap Straw Man - you'll just never admit it.

Make that 101x the has run from the question: how to do science if you have to allow for unpredictable and undetectable supernatural intervention?

[Yttrium]

"My complete thesis is that everyone - bar none - is religious."

Considering that I know that I'm not in the least bit religious, I have evidence to my complete satisfaction that Jorge is delusional.

(We already knew that, but now the evidence is complete.)

[Jorge]

Make that 101x the has run from the question: how to do science if you have to allow for unpredictable and undetectable supernatural intervention?

Obviously you're not going to address what I bring up with any honesty or seriousness
and so, ergo, kindly do not post in this thread again. You have been asked nicely.

Now scoot!

Jorge

[Jorge]

"My complete thesis is that everyone - bar none - is religious."

Considering that I know that I'm not in the least bit religious, I have evidence to my complete satisfaction that Jorge is delusional.

(We already knew that, but now the evidence is complete.)

So, you "know" that you're "not the least bit religious".

Great, with that claim you've informed me of one thing:
you don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about.

I'm not sure if it's worth my time but, what the heck, I'll take a quick stab at it...
What is your ideological or worldview position? Everyone has one of those.
How do you think the universe, life and consciousness came into being?

Note that nowhere did I ask for your religious position.
Especially since (ahem) you "don't have" a religious position.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Obviously you're not going to address what I bring up with any honesty or seriousness
and so, ergo, kindly do not post in this thread again. You have been asked nicely.

I get one post to acknowledge your cowardly act so here it is. You, Jorge the welsher Fernandez, are without a doubt the most craven cajones-less excuse for a man to ever disgrace a science discussion board. Your compulsive lies and dishonesty are known not only at TWeb but at C/E sites across the internet. You constantly whine about YECs being EXPELLED yet you ban all people who can expose your woeful scientific ignorance. Jorge the welsher Fernandez - liar, coward, hypocrite.

8685256997_f7a7e65bce_b.jpg

[Jorge]

I get one post to acknowledge your cowardly act so here it is. You, Jorge the welsher Fernandez, are without a doubt the most craven cajones-less excuse for a man to ever disgrace a science discussion board. Your compulsive lies and dishonesty are known not only at TWeb but at C/E sites across the internet. You constantly whine about YECs being EXPELLED yet you ban all people who can expose your woeful scientific ignorance. Jorge the welsher Fernandez - liar, coward, hypocrite.

You aren't above the law, Beagle Boy. Get off this thread.
Consider yourself kicked in the butt by my size 11 boot. Bwahahahaha

Where is Sparko when he should be doing something?

Just like the FBI and DOJ with Clinton, certain people get a free pass for major
crimes while the rest of us get tossed into jail for failing to use our signal light.
I have been issued warnings and posts deleted. Where is the same for Beagle Boy?

Hellooooooooooooo, Sparko ... are you there?

Jorge

[Catholicity]

Funny Jorge, we believe God created the Universe, but you accuse us of believing in Magic. In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth. We believe that it took God to do this? Why are you so disingenuos?

[Jorge]

Funny Jorge, we believe God created the Universe, but you accuse us of believing in Magic. In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth. We believe that it took God to do this? Why are you so disingenuos?

Are you in the least bit comprehending what I've written?

Go back, re-read (maybe 2 or 3 more times) and try again.

Here's a hint:

Who is this "us" that I am accusing of believing in magic?
Did you become a Materialist since the last time that you haunted me?

BTW, love that pic of the kitten!

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

You aren't above the law, Beagle Boy.

Thanks ! Because you still can't keep that big fat mouth of yours shut, since you continue to address me I can by TWeb rules keep responding.

So why are you such a spineless coward? Why do you run screaming from every piece of evidence your YECkster FLUD nonsense can't explain? All those geologic formations like angular unconformities

2501444029_35080b4767_o.jpg

Or severely deformed strata like this.

2501443871_51aa24b5fb_o.jpg

Or genetic results like ERV groupings which are strong evidence for hominoid common descent.

image6.jpg

The only materialistic magic around here is how your dry cleaners manage to remove those yellow stains from the front of all your slacks.

[oxmixmudd]

You aren't above the law, Beagle Boy. Get off this thread.
Consider yourself kicked in the butt by my size 11 boot. Bwahahahaha

Where is Sparko when he should be doing something?

Just like the FBI and DOJ with Clinton, certain people get a free pass for major
crimes while the rest of us get tossed into jail for failing to use our signal light.
I have been issued warnings and posts deleted. Where is the same for Beagle Boy?

Hellooooooooooooo, Sparko ... are you there?

Jorge

Why are you banning the Beagle anyway? Sure he can be 'difficult ', but no more so than you.

First, He knows what he's talking about. Second, while he's not kind to YEC ideas, it's for a reason. They don't hold up. And also unlike you, he can explain why, and he does.

You don't ban others that confront YEC silliness, so I realize it's not just that he shows the faults in YEC.

But it's poor form on your part. A Cheap shot, more revenge than anything legit.


Jim

[Roy]

In fact, if to identify the "religious" we use the criterion of "believing in something (1) in spite of not having any tangible evidence and/or, (2) that goes against demonstrable science and reason", then Materialists are as religious as, say, Snake Worshipers.

If to identify "the scum of the earth" we use the criterion of "blathers, clucks and welches on bets", then Jorge Fernandez is the scum of the earth

[oxmixmudd]

I just finished reading a well-written article at the CMI site from April 2016, here:

http://creation.com/five-atheist-mir...ampaign=emails

It's about "Five Atheist Miracles". Years ago I had my own version of the same theme in which I explored more in-depth the first of these miracles - the one about the origin of the universe. [There's also the 'magical' origin of stars, but that will have to be another time]

In my own article I stated and defended the position that Materialists [which include Atheists, Humanists and even some "Christians"] are every bit as religious as any other (recognized) religious person*. In fact, if to identify the "religious" we use the criterion of "believing in something (1) in spite of not having any tangible evidence and/or, (2) that goes against demonstrable science and reason", then Materialists are as religious as, say, Snake Worshipers.

Simply and concisely, on the origin of the universe Materialists must believe that something came from absolute nothingness. This is a position that goes against demonstrable science and logic and for which they have not a single shred of tangible evidence. Yet, that is exactly what Materialists believe and they do so with a passion that may be equaled but not surpassed.

The question is thus begged, why do Materialists invoke the "our position is based on science while yours is based on religion" argument as often as they do? That too is a mystery.


*My complete thesis is that everyone - bar none - is religious.

Jorge

No Jorge -

(1) 'believe in something ' is not how we typically define religious.

Source: websters

Religion
1):the belief in a god or in a group of gods
2): an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
3): an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

© Copyright Original Source

The 3rd definition is closest, but by the time you get there, the word is being used as a metaphor - e.g. "That fellow's interest in cycling is like a relgion"

Religious of course is just that adjective describing a person that has a religion.

So what you are doing here is using taking the metaphorical use of the word at the beginning of your argument, and then substituting the primary definition at the end. Argument by substitution of terms with non-equivalent definitions is not a valid argument.

In non-metaphorical terms - religion refers to the belief in God or a group of gods. It does not define belief in the general sense.

(2) There is no singular belief that the "Universe came out of nothing". Theory and observation leads to the conclusion the universe began as some kind of singularity. The universe is expanding. Reversing that process - assuming the universe has finite extent - leads to the conclusion that at some point in its past, the mass/density was such that the universe was a singularity.

What is the source of that singularity has several possible options. only one is creation out of nothing. Whatever a person 'believes' about that initial form may or may not lead back to belief in God. But belief the universe began from a singularity is the natural conclusion from the existing data and observations. Having that belief does not imply religion in even the metaphorical sense.

(3) There are many types of belief that a person or group of persons might have that would not be defined as religious, even in the metaphorical sense. I believe my wife is faithful to me. I can't prove it, but my observations of her are consistent with that belief. But that belief does NOT constitute any sort of Religion, and a person can believe in the unprovable faithfulness of their partners without that belief constituting some sort of basis for religious faith. And to call it 'religious' would - except in certain extreme cases - be an inappropriate used of the word.


Jim