You tell me, here are six non-human painters.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/27307/6-professional-painters-animal-kingdom
No.
Are we made in God's image?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
You tell me, here are six non-human painters.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/27307/6-professional-painters-animal-kingdom
No.
Paranoid?? I'm not the one making unsupported nonsensical claims. I'm not the one that sees the need for dishonesty to push my agenda. Perhaps you are in front of that mirror again?
Is that nonsensical statement supposed to make me feel bad or something? Coming from you with your questionable reputation?
Like Teroko for example.You forgotten already? You know, honesty in admitting that while science can adequately explain the evolution of the universe, and while evolution remains as fact, they still prefer their faith.
They don't go on as you do, lying, misrepresenting and misinterpreting statements, redefining of words, to support that faith. Try it Jan
Of course!!! You are entitled to whatever mythical beliefs that brings you comfort, joy and any warm inner glow that you need to survive. In the meantime, I and others will stick to facts like evolution [micro and macro] and near certain scenarios like the BB as being the evolution of the observable universe. Acceptance of those well supported facts and theories, do also highlight the superfluous and supernatural aspect of any beast you chose to call a God.
Hard to reject something that doesn't exist.
On the other hand. like the rest of the forum, I do resent your dishonesty as well as your preaching..
Last edited:
That’s what you have to keep telling yourself.
Darwinism helps. Even Dawkins remarked that darwinism has helped in this area...
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectualy fulfilled atheist.”
To date you can’t pinpoint anything I’ve said that’s dishonest. You create the idea, so you don’t have to engage in discussion. Because you have nothing to discuss.
Is that right?
No again that's simply you lying. I and others have pin pointed many of your lies. Afterall that.s what you had your enforced holiday for and the closure of a thread.
Kangaroo court.
You can’t point to anything I’ve said to be a lie.
You want and eat it.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Now that is a very clever tactic Jan.
You stir everyone up thinking that all will now waste their time looking for lies, which given the volume of lies you put out there could have one compiling a list for weeks maybe longer, knowing that their time wasting will alleviate the constant pressure you are under in all the threads you currently involve yourself where in you can not provide reasonable answers and generally are getting crushed.
We all know that you were banned recently on two separate occassions, one time for trolling, one day, and then three days for lieing.
One could note that even though your trolling is habitual that your lieing attracted three times the penalty which indicates your lieing is even more predominant than your trolling which of course is considerable.
And let's face it the pressure is on you from many sides...you must be getting tired of having your nose rubbed in the dirt with all the evidence for evolution where it has been conclusively proved how species evolved in particular your favourite the whale, ...and no doubt you can now only conclude that ID is just more made up nonsense typical of the various god myths.
And particularly in this thread even you must be embarrassed by the crazy claims that we readily find in the good book.
You are desperate as evidenced by your call for folk to list all your lies.. I recall one post I listed perhaps eight lies and interestingly you did not object...because I was right.
So back to the op.
If god was walking in a shopping centre would he look any different to the humans nearby? Would be have reproductive organs given humans have them..If he does why..If he does not why...now I know it's not that you won't answer it's a case of I know that you can not... Creationism is so shallow and so poorly thought out that one only has to ask some simple questions to reveal just how made up the god story shows itself to be.
Alex
Of course! Playing the victim card card when once again backed into a corner?
I'm not jumping through the hoops as dictated out by the forum liar.
You have asked me before in the other threads where you have lied and when pointed out, all we get is ignorance or further lies.
Thankfully, it isn't the way of all believers....some are reasonably honest enough to accept they have nothing but belief and faith.
You mean I was accused of lying. There’s a difference.
The decent thing to do would have been to pinpoint lies that I’m supposed to have told.
Not desperate, just asking to show where you think I’m lying. It is a desperate move to just ban me without warning, on charges that aren’t proven.
It reminds of communist China, when whistle blowers suddenly disappear, or get put in prison on trumped up charges of treason for telling the truth.
Just writing a list, labelling them lies, and banning me without question, on your account, is not evidence that I’m lying.
You need to show that I am purposely distorting known truths (not ideas). It’s poor taste to convict someone without a hearing in this day and age.
Yet you’re the one who are desperate.
You’re the ones who cannot explain why darwinian explanation of the evidence is even scientifically valid, let the best one. Obviously Darwin based his ideas on known facts, and theories of the time.
His inference of common ancestry, the controversial aspect of his theory, was understood in a time when nothing was known about genetics, or the complex inner workings of the cell.
He also had a problem with the Cambrian strata, where an abundance of fossils evidencing fully formed, complex life, compared to the pre Cambrian strata, where nothing much happens, seemed to exploded into to the scene.
He also had a misgiving about the development of the eye.
We know Trilobite eyes aren’t simple little light-sensitive specs, but very complex tools. Darwinists don’t really have an answer to that. So there are lots of evidences that don’t fit the darwinist model, despite your confidence.
You’re just about mockery. You have nothing to really go on but some superficial confidence on something that makes you feel good about your weak position.
You ask me about God, but you don’t want to discuss how God is defined. Let’s face it, if we work off the definition of God, such silly question would be regarded as trolling. You know what the definition of God is, and you know the version I give is more or less complete, because you are, by dint of worldview, antithetical to God.
Your trying to distract from serious discussion, by pretending there is no definition of God, so you can troll.
You keep harping on about “Creationism”, as though I’m a creationist. Believing that God is the transcendental origin of everything does not make me a “Creationist”.
But that’s just another reason to troll. Don’t take into account what I write, just put all theists in the same bracket.
Ignoring the rest of your ignorant crap, denial and lies......
You look like a creationist, you smell like a creationist, you sound like a creationist.............And on "harping" "come in Pot, come in kettle!
Jan, you're a fraudster and a charlatan, I'll certainly discuss any god delusion in whatever way you chose to define.
Again define it whatever way you like, it changes nothing in the greater scheme of things and the facts remain that any supernatural/paranormal entity is unscientific and superfluous, thanks wholly to the discipline of science.
You look like a creationist, you smell like a creationist, you sound like a creationist.............And on "harping" "come in Pot, come in kettle!
As I have told you at least twice, what you believe changes nothing...that's your problem. But the reality is that god simply is an unscientific and superfluous myth, that you and others prefer to believe in to hide from the finality of death and denying a return to whence you came...star dust.
Not at all, some theists are basically honest.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I think that perhaps you have been so over the top that decency is no longer extended to you.
You must have thought about it..do you think your ban was unjustified in that you did not lie..are you saying you do not lie a fair bit.
I have no experience in Communist China.
If you like from now on each time you lie I will make a real big deal out of it...do you want me to do that..I can become rather pedantic when I focus on something and you perhaps need to ask if you really want me keeping score.
Perhaps but you do tend to go over the top and so you may expect to be treated in a manner that you consider unfair.
Do you think you lie ...are you aware that it is pretty frequent...
OK if it makes you feel better ..I am desperate.. I am just so worried that Evolution is a myth ( as I have seen folk deceived by myth and certainly I never want to end up like them.
Well yes. Somethings cry out for it.
Back at ya.
Subtely sneak in a seemingly casual observation which no doubt you will seek to build upon as time goes on...we shall see.
Well let's clear it up...are you a creationist? Now will you be honest ? By that I mean will you answer yes or no?
I expect it will be..it's not in the op..or some things are private..orbits not about me..I demand either a yes or no.
I know I won't get it but I am really looking forward to how you avoid a direct answer...because that will confirm my belief that theists are sneaky.
Jan there are moments that you truly impress me with your ability to actually discuss something..but those times, are these days, the exception not the rule...however I can never discuss a proposition that is such a non event..I am sorry but there are thousands of gods and clearly they are a human invention ...we both reject all these Gods I just reject one more than you do...I am a realist.
I guess my problem with all this god stuff is that no one knows if there is a god or not, and I am convinced that there is not, but from not knowing anything believers start to make unsupported claims ... from creation to what god expects us to eat..whatever... and you for example you love to talk about god and wonder what he thinks etc but the fact remains you know absolutely nothing but from there you cobble together all sorts of unsupported ideas and an inability to look at any facts that somehow threaten these unsupported beliefs..moreover you present as irrational when discussing evolution in particular...you say you like discussion but you are incapable of discussing evolution because you are not interested if the discussion moves to a region that threatens your beliefs. As I said I am a realist and I just think it is so sad that a smart person like you is clearly damaged in some way that has you appearing normal and yet incapable of rationality when you move into certain areas.
Alex
If you accuse somebody of something, you should back that accusation with examples.
Why don’t you show where I have lied in the past?
An example of “a lie” would suffice. Do you have any?
I agree with that.
Based on my response, have a guess.
[1/2]
Bigotry is tragic.
I can actually believe that. After all, your response doesn't follow. From your post, to my response, to your change of subject.
The dumbest thing about it is making it so pridefully apparent that you're simply seeking to inflict.
Am I really supposed to believe that? Seriously, I will, if you really, really want me to. But there are some implications about qualifying bigotry as noncompetency.
Meanwhile, you're out to defend a topic post that has no clue what it's on about and no decent intention, and we ought not be surprised that you can't do it in any straightforward manner.
To borrow from Jean-Paul Sartre, ca. 1944:
The [supremacist] has chosen hate because hate is a faith. At the outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease he feels as a result. How futile and frvolous discussions about the reality of his hatred appear to him. He has placed himself on other ground from the beginning. If out of courtesy he consents for someone to defend his point of view, he lends himself but does not give himself. He tries simply to project his intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse. I mentioned awhile back some remarks by supremacists, all of them absurd: "I hate [them] because they make servants insubordinate, because [one of them] robbed me, etc." Never believe the supremacists are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The supremacists have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.
So. to cover a point from another thread, no, that wasn't you I was referring to, but I will take the note for future reference.
Because, really, if you're absolutely determined to believe that "none of them can employ objectivity", then you're right that it's not worth wasting time on you. To wit, consider this example:
This is an example of what Sartre said about friviolity and play. The question becomes why you would skip out on all that for cheap generalization. And here's the context for that: I can't hold you to account for what another atheist says, but to use the topic poster as an example, underlying his bigotry is ostensibly some cluster of complaints that are hard to hold him to explicitly, but include and generally orbit propositions that atheists are immoral and inferior, such as the trope about how there is no morality without God. More recently, he tried the pretense of caring about people, in re the harms religious belief and practice can inflict on others and even the believers themselves. To the other, it's worth noting that he has, for years, seemed to fulfill certain grim projections by religious people insofar as there is an old question about moral structures that he is, years later, still unable to address in any straightforward manner. In his case, sure, I might wonder at his concern about being accused of lacking morality, since he actually puts effort into avoiding discussion that could resolve that question and put the religious accusation against atheists on its heels.
Similarly, you strike a tone: "But you must know all that." Okay, but the question arises why you would skip out on all that. There is a certain frivolity, and if not amusement, then, at least solace, apparent in those three paragraphs.
But we should probably cover this part, since it comes next:
But why this is all about Jan? Because that's how a small clutch of atheists at Sciforums wants it?
Think of a fourteen hundred post, necromantic, off-topic digression dedicated to calling out Jan Ardena↗ because it's a better prospect than actaully answering the question of what they know about what they criticize. What a convenient dodge. But not only is Jan a focus of some of the behavior that motivated that thread, and the reason for reawakening it a second time in order to pitch a fit, and then have to close it because, well, y'know, Jan Ardena, there was also the middle section, itself a weird revival, in which he was eventually summoned—(repeatedly↗ invoked↗)—because, well, compared to the question of what one actually knows about what they crticize, I mean, y'know, Jan Ardena. Along the way I explained to him↗ the reason why:
And, sure, I just did that cartoon thing, essentially pointing to all of you, but these seventeen-plus years later, do you know why, compared to rational discourse, these people keep you around? Don't get me wrong: You're generally beyond communication, Jan. The most accessible description of the problem would probably be that you seem more interested in the feeling of being some kind of evangelist trying to tell people what is what than actually saying anything useful ....
.... And they need you to be more dangerous than you really are. If I say, mostly harmless, and, don't panic, there are at least a couple of people here who ought to know what that means. But they need you to be more akin to the Devil itself, and so you are just that much more important to them. Which is its own two-word joke, but, y'know, whatever.
.... And they need you to be more dangerous than you really are. If I say, mostly harmless, and, don't panic, there are at least a couple of people here who ought to know what that means. But they need you to be more akin to the Devil itself, and so you are just that much more important to them. Which is its own two-word joke, but, y'know, whatever.
And we're, like, fifteen months out from that, and here y'all are, repeatedly demonstrating my point. Still, even before I advised him about what it is that makes him look false, it was established in that very thread↗ that we must keep people around even when they behave poorly.
No, I'm not joking. The line was that they're generally annoying, but nobody says we have to keep them around if they're utterly full of shite. And the answer was, "Yeah, I do, and I've explained why, many times, at length."
Remember, please, as you bawl about Jan—er, excuse me, merely play with a troll—that kind of turns out to be the point. As I said last month↗: There is an underlying belief that some of our advocates of the supernatural are somehow dangerous. And, again, Jan Ardena has no flock but those who need him as an idol to lash against. Jan's is an easy cult; he needn't move much, for everyone else comes running to him.
Think of it this way: Once upon a time, we used to say lots about rational argument and supporting evidence, and all that. But some arguments are hard to make rationally in any responsible manner; rather than hold out and await useful, good-faith arguments about those subjects, the bar is selectively lowered for some. There are diverse reasons for doing so, including misplaced noble intentions, such as guarding free speech; or personal biases amounting to abstract sympathy guiding the need to mitigate and excuse. The personal biases underpinning these Poe-atheistic performances are blatant, but the bit about keeping the whipping idol around is just grotesque.
That is, if you hold Jan to some standard of argumentative integrity, what political view are you really suppressing? Spoiler alert: You're not.
To the other, if he is held to some standard, so are atheists. That, apparently, is a problem.
But without at least these gutterwhiff pretenses of religious evangelism, it's just a roomful of atheistic zealots making up gods and believers to scold↗.
This is part of why we gave over any standards of rational discourse, and various notions having to do with a science site. This is what we get out of the trade.
____________________
Notes:
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Anti-Semite and Jew. 1944. New York: Schocken Books, 1995.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I did you however ignored my post. However in the future I will keep a list of your lies that I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt and then open a thread so you can address each statement that I claim is a lie so you can of course claim that you did not lie..would you like that..an entire thread where you will be the center of attention...of course you would.
That should feed that ego you seem to find insatiable.
In any event I am not a moderator and I had nothing to do with your ban when the reason given was that you were lieing..you are barking up the wrong tree.
Because I don't have enough time to compile a list...now I would if I had a keyboard and a screen but remember I do this with one finger on a small screen on my phone...besides I don't need to prove that you lie you have taken care of that in a most adequate fashion.
I don't keep tabs on you Jan and frankly I would rather think about the good Jan not the one who lies and does so to such a degree that it draws a ban from a very tolerant moderator. Are you saying you did not lie? Do you tell so many that you cant remember?
I do recall you saying that Paddo was not into science when clearly he is...and I did point that out..the fact you did not reject my call suggests you had accepted my call.
My guess is that you are indeed a creationist...was my guess correct? "Yes", "No" or "let us first define creationist"
Alex
[2/2]
Which going out of whose way would you like?
Yeah, I get that you don't have to go out of your way, nor does anyone else, and it makes for a nice huffy boast, but how the fuck about history?
There is an episode of someone going out of his way to confront Jan, because, what, things were boring without Jan Ardena to complain about, or something? Aside from picking a fight in order to bury a discussion atheists didn't want to have and then shut it down because, waaah! Jan Ardena! what, really, are we supposed to think that one↗ was about?
To the other, if you're not going out of your way in declaring, "none of them can employ objectivity", then, sure, okay, I'll take the note.
Fallacy isn't good support. Remember, part of what we're talking about here is demanding others come and say something, in order to demand that they should give evidence. But think of that fourteen hundred post digression about Jan Ardena: It turns out that what some atheists at Sciforums know is how to tread water while spitting venom at insincere nonadvocacy of, what was it, this time, creationism?
Meanwhile, can the parties in your traffic matter agree that the fucking road exists?
I just think it's fucking stupid as hell for anyone to go from Jan Ardena to "theists". And I think the reason people make that leap is that they're not well-enough informed about theism or religion to make the criticism they want.
If Jan fucking Ardena is enough to reduce these atheists to fearful blithering, what the hell is wrong with them?
If somebody needs to stand in the road and invite others to come run him over so he can sue them, have we reached the limits of your traffic metaphor?
Look, it's not that I necessarily disagree with that point over there, or this one right here, or how long has that one been sitting on your shelf, as such. But what if none of that really has anything to do with what is going on?
I should turn back to 2017↗, here:
Despite having a healthy thirty-percent bloc declaring no religion, Australia needed Christians (fifty-two percent) in order to achieve the result they did in their marriage equality postal survey. Leading up to the vote, people were expecting a closer contest; in the end, with seventy-nine and a half percent of the electorate participating in the voluntary survey, it was a mop, sixty-one and change to thirty-one and change.
In terms of the difference between those listed concerns, it wasn't the self-indulgent engagement that communicated with religious people, who in turn were comfortable enough with their understanding of how things were about to go that they accepted the difference 'twixt certain assertions of faith and the living reality of Australian Christians.
Nor did we win in Washington state without Christians [in 2012].
In terms of the difference between those listed concerns, it wasn't the self-indulgent engagement that communicated with religious people, who in turn were comfortable enough with their understanding of how things were about to go that they accepted the difference 'twixt certain assertions of faith and the living reality of Australian Christians.
Nor did we win in Washington state without Christians [in 2012].
When you say, "Is it not reasonable to say that, using the loose term, theists, do not employ objectivity", the answer is that I have far too many examples to the other.
And he's been this way for years. And there are reasons you're expected to endure him, and to choose to either engage him or not. And they don't really have anything to do with truth or lies, except they do, just in a different way, pertaining to different truths and lies.
But there are reasons why certain irrational, dishonest, and even cruel pretenses are entertained here at Sciforums. Tell us all you want about how Jan argues. Indeed, make it clear for people. Jan's method really isn't all that different from a political version other people run, and, recently, that other version ran more effectively than it should have been able to in a discussion about religion, because the atheist on that occasion will accept whatever halfwitted pretense of religion any troll is willing to offer up. And, honestly, if it hadn't been for such a pathetic pretense, the atheist wouldn't have had such exposure to running around in circles for the sake of two-bit, noncommittal, countermaneuver troll retort.
When you say things about all theists, like that, such is the point of keeping Jan Ardena around. Nobody has a great solution for the general problem of intellectual dishonesty, but you're not the only one↗ trying to justify your behavior according to what other people do, and the thing is, there is an underlying irony.
If the problem is the quality of discussion or lack of honesty, well, as the one said, mods decide, jump to it, and all. But you, and he, are part of the reason those difficult other members you're upset at have been spared, for years, the obligations of good faith. Well, Jan. The other one, it's complex, but the effect in the moment, because of the particular circumstancs, is the same.
So, again: If we hold Jan to some standard of argumentative integrity? Well, how do we do that? He doesn't really say anything. But there is a backstory to this.
Consider the sort of evangelists who throw Bible quotes for every occasion. To the one, we know they're full of shit. To the other, making the point is sometimes hard. That is, who really wants to study that much whatever just to ward off the swindlers? But many religious swindlers found no play, here. I know of maybe two alleged conversions to religion over the years; there might have been more. But the quick-quoting evangelists won't find sport, here, only contempt and ignorance. Think of the advocates making atheists writhe, in here: Jan Ardena, Musika, Bowser, Seti Alpha 6, and, I mean, really, Saint? Vociferous had James running circles, recently, but he was just doing the same thing he does in the Politics subforum. Watch closely; these advocates don't really bring anything. And to a certain degree, it seems preferred, as such, if they don't.
After all, if these are held to some standard, so are atheists. And that is potentially problematic. Look, "Fuck off, Godboy!" might have some satisfaction about it, but the one thing it ain't is a rational argument, no matter how right you might be, or how stupid preacher over there might be.
And with these preachers, that's the nearest functional reason I can explain why they're allowed to carry on. They suit the mood: Without them, it's not like the atheists at Sciforums would have much more to say in their absence. These halfassed pretenses of religion come to represent "theists" in order to justify atheistic bigotry and sloth.
For some of your fellows, Jan is needed because they don't know how to deal with anything more coherent. To wit, is it at all significant that for years of disgust with Jan, some had identified him by the wrong religion? When I say he doesn't say much or bring anything, that's the point. How did these atheists not notice? They were running on fallacy.
Ignoring someone, though, is its own question. To some degree, it just shouldn't have to come to that. I tried addressing an aspect of this, before, too, but why, and what is the result? Twofold: First, sure, we all lose our tempers, sometimes, as I noted two and a half years ago↗, and maybe we say some ugly things, but that also seems to be part of the point why some people and issues are given a pass. The other thing is that it leaves misinformation unchallenged, which is a messy story of its own, around here.
Comparatively, between, say, Jan Ardena, and other seemingly protected ranges of irrational, dishonest, and even cruel pretense people are expected to choose to engage or let pass at Sciforums, Jan really isn't so dangerous. Compared to religious swindles in general, he's only as dangerous as you or anyone else wants to make him.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Yes but I don't hold a monopoly. But there is another level to me perhaps one that would have you see me in a different light...
Yes I agree that it is dumb but I find it entertaining...but remember it is only a childish response to childish behaviour.
I would enjoy that even if you want to ridicule me your style I find so enjoyable I would not object.
I think the fact that I am so straight forward is perhaps your big concern with me.
Perhaps irrelevant. You assume incorrectly that I hate my opponents.
Well to be honest I could not see why it could be me but I am most happy that you are now somewhat specific at least to put my mind at ease.
I know I generalise but it seems reasonable if we limit the generalisation to those who fail to employ objectivity in this place.
In any event there is a context and in that context I feel comfortable with my call.
That is the way of it. My observation is that is my best way to engage. I don't know if it is just me but I get the impression Jan will never elevate any discussion to a level where frivolity could become out of place.
I can not answer either question...it was like that when I arrived.
There is little I disagree with...for my part I do enjoy playing with Jan, not for any other reason that on my part no great effort as to input is required..This is really the only site I visit other than my astronomy site..now being realistic..I don't have the knowledge to engage in a meaningful science discussion, nor politics...anything really...and I try not to be a problem for the site..as to the problem re the site of having so much stuff that in my view one should not expect to find on a science site again all I can say is..it was like that when I arrived.
Nice post and thank you for it..
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I can see your point.
However I have no intention of getting at all serious about religion.
You assume my knowledge is limited because you observe children fighting in the play ground.
I am not going to boast what I know but if you want to call me take it to whatever level you like and after those discussions compare your opinions before and after...the question is where would we start..well for me it will be a long way before the era that I suspect you may be preoccupied with.
Second thoughts no I don't wish to get involved at a level higher than Jan.
Look I am sorry but I have to go but know this there is little in your post I would disagree with and really I would love to hold a serious discussion with you ..it would certainly do me good.. I will catch up later..thanks for the excellent post..it is a pleasure to be forced to think about your presentation...as you no doubt gather I have been out of the thinking game and sensible discussion for a long long time...23 hears to be exact.
Alex