Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Hydra009]

I have no qualms whatever with scientific investigation

That's pretty hard to believe from someone consistently railing against the naturalism of science.  You can't have it both ways.

The faithful here are some of your more zealous atheists whose fact claim far outstrips available knowledge and evidence. Its actually a belief claim.

Oh the irony...

[Drew_2017]

That's pretty hard to believe from someone consistently railing against the naturalism of science.  You can't have it both ways.
Oh the irony...

I've stated science is predisposed toward naturalistic explanations so we shouldn't be surprised all theories are naturalistic. However science is also a search for the truth and its methodologies find truth even if its not expected or what scientists had hoped for like the theory the universe came into existence from a singularity. Many scientists are still trying to find a loophole to this finding.

Unlike my opponents my beliefs are subject to facts and data. If we discover the way in which life began naturalistically that will be very significant. If scientists discover different life forms not connected to life on earth, if scientists find naturalistic answers such as why the properties for life obtained, why there are laws of nature and how the universe came into existence. Apart from that atheism (though no one here will admit it) is just a counter belief claim. Its a valid opinion, either we owe our existence to mindless naturalistic forces...or we don't. Theism is a valid opinion also regardless of popular opinion.

[sdelsolray]

...
Unlike my opponents my beliefs are subject to facts and data.
...

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.  But go ahead and dream on.  You pretend well.

[Cavebear]

They do so by comparing their belief to claims that are irrefutable and stating their belief is the same. 

You confuse "beliefs" with factual statements.  It is common among theists (who by admission) must "believe" rather than trust to earthly facts.

What amuses ME is how believers of non-evidential matters (theists) consider non-supported beliefs to be factual.  What saddens me is that you can't tell the difference.

Well, I can hope that like "flat-earthers" you will eventually die off and leave the world to more rational humans.

[Baruch]

You confuse "beliefs" with factual statements.  It is common among theists (who by admission) must "believe" rather than trust to earthly facts.

What amuses ME is how believers of non-evidential matters (theists) consider non-supported beliefs to be factual.  What saddens me is that you can't tell the difference.

Well, I can hope that like "flat-earthers" you will eventually die off and leave the world to more rational humans.

Sorry, there will be no Survivors ... we all get kicked off the island ;-(

[Unbeliever]

[Drew_2017]

You confuse "beliefs" with factual statements.  It is common among theists (who by admission) must "believe" rather than trust to earthly facts.

What amuses ME is how believers of non-evidential matters (theists) consider non-supported beliefs to be factual.  What saddens me is that you can't tell the difference.

Well, I can hope that like "flat-earthers" you will eventually die off and leave the world to more rational humans.

This is exactly the kind of hubris and arrogance that keeps atheism numbers abysmally low in spite of your absurd claim atheism is as proven as a round earth. Theism is a belief as atheism is. You just believe so fervently that its become an irrefutable fact in your mind but your delusion isn't my problem. 

[Baruch]

This is exactly the kind of hubris and arrogance that keeps atheism numbers abysmally low in spite of your absurd claim atheism is as proven as a round earth. Theism is a belief as atheism is. You just believe so fervently that its become an irrefutable fact in your mind but your delusion isn't my problem.

Dogmatism isn't just for dogs ;-)  However the atheist has a more technical definition of belief ... anything objective ... isn't a belief, only subjective things are.  This comes from using older definitions of words.  "Creation Science" uses an older definition of science ... something like "Knowledge" ... as it was defined 1000 years ago.  Materialists of course use it as meaning "result of modern scientific method circuit 1700".  English is a terrible language as it is, and then we ignorantly or deliberately misuse the poor thing.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Nope I'm not getting sucked into another long discussion with a notorious windbag. competent individual. FTFY

Of course not. You know you'll get your ass handed to you, again. You have nothing to offer us but the same tired apologitics that theists have been trying to make stick for centuries, if not millennia, without success. It doesn't even occur to you that there might be something wrong with your reasonable-sounding arguments. Sorry, bud, but any deep analysis of the theistic hypothesis reveals that it doesn't work â€" it folds back on and destroys itself. No matter how much it sticks in your metaphysical craw, spontaneous emergence of the universe by some means is the most likely alternative, and you have no argument that counters that. Goddidit is at best a distraction from actual investigation.

This is exactly the kind of hubris and arrogance that keeps atheism numbers abysmally low in spite of your absurd claim atheism is as proven as a round earth.

Not "proven as a round earth" â€" a consistent hypothesis in contrast with one that... well, isn't.

So math or STFU.

[Drew_2017]

Of course not. You know you'll get your ass handed to you,

Everyone in here whose ever responded to me suffers from the delusion I was handed my ass. If we debated before some impartial group of people my only fear would be they suffer and die from long winded responses.

[Baruch]

Everyone in here whose ever responded to me suffers from the delusion I was handed my ass. If we debated before some impartial group of people my only fear would be they suffer and die from long winded responses.

Check your ego at the door, and you will do well anywhere.

[Cavebear]

Theism is a belief as atheism is.

If atheism is a belief, then bald is a hair color.

[Drew_2017]

If atheism is a belief, then bald is a hair color.

What do you think atheism is? Is it what you know is true?
I also disagree with the notion anyone is born atheist. Babies have no way of knowing if God exists or not.

[sdelsolray]

Everyone in here whose ever responded to me suffers from the delusion I was handed my ass. If we debated before some impartial group of people my only fear would be they suffer and die from long winded responses.

Mr. "I'm Infected with the Dunning-Kruger Effect" speaks.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Everyone in here whose ever responded to me suffers from the delusion I was handed my ass. If we debated before some impartial group of people my only fear would be they suffer and die from long winded responses.

Scientific issues are not settled in "debates" the way you think of them. They are settled in the scientific literature, through a barrage of papers over the course of years to decades. Long papers. Papers filled with equations and figures that would send you into conniptions, and where the kind of accusations you throw at me would have been a red flag to everyone that you have no case to give.

Seriously, if you think my posts are "long winded," you have obviously never read any peer-review papers. At all.

So, yes. You have been handed your ass. The only thing is, you fail to recognize it as your ass, thinking it's a pot roast.