So the existence of Logical Fallacies alone SHOULD remind you that you can not accept a claim before it is objectively verified....and claim that you are a reasonable individual. — Nickolasgaspar

I accept the claim untill it's falsified.

If you are too lazy to proofread what you type then few people will have any idea what you are trying to say. — universeness

Sorry mate. The problem is not how lazy I am, but your inability to understand how we calculate probabilities and why percentages about your personal certainty are irrelevant to the credence of a claim....

Yes you can — universeness

ok provide the "tools" by which you can arrive to a statistical figure..and I will come to your Nobel award ceremony....lol

I know! and your quotes contradict each other. How sure are you about your atheism? Could you suggest a percentage quantifier so that others could gain a sense of how strong your atheism is? — universeness

-My atheism...again...is irrelevant to your factual wrong preconception that your degrees of personal certainty have anything to do with the statistical credence of a claim.

And what's wrong with being dogmatic? — Hillary

It can result in extremism and extreme behaviour.

The world would break apart if they appeared in the macro domain. — Hillary

Again they sound incompetent if they can't appear without destroying our world.
I can appear in a virtual world as an avatar and not destroy the computer in the process.
So I can do what your gods cant?

That would make me as dogmatic as theists! We have already had that chat! — universeness

I know, but Dawkins is just as dogmatic then.

I accept the claim untill it's falsified. — Hillary

lol you can not do that mrs Hillary. If you do that you leave the door open for more logical fallacies.
If you accept a claim before it is demonstrated then you will be forced to accept all conflicting and competing claims on the same subject. In order NOT to do that you will be force to use Special Pleading and Cherry Picking or utilize your Cognitive Dissonance.
You are arguing in favor of gullibility mrs Hillary! This is the exact tactic responsible for more than 4.300 different religions and 170+ non secular spiritual worldviews hijacking people's minds.

You really need a course on Logic 101 asap!

It can result in extremism and extreme behaviour. — universeness

Virtual anything can lead to that behavior. Being dogmatic tells nothing about your attitudes.

Again they sound incompetent if they can't appear without destroying our world.
I can appear in a virtual world as an avatar and not destroy the computer in the process.
So I can do what your gods cant? — universeness

Again, so what? You might appear in your videogame and destroy it. But why should they do that? Why they had created it in the first place? Should they destroy it because human gods fucked up a little?

you can not do that mrs Hillary. — Nickolasgaspar

It's that what Sir Popper tells us?

His first wife Lillith was a rebel as well. Eve was its second attempt and she was a rebel too. — universeness

I have no idea where did you get that from...

So why are you threatened with punishment and judgment if you don't make the choices your god requires? How can this god give you freedom of choice and then punish you for eternity if you choose to use that choice to reject god? — universeness

rejecting God is one thing, making wrong choices is unrelated:
if I make a wrong choice I can fix it.
if I reject God then I gave up my freedom because I can no longer fix my mistakes.

I am, but your inability to understand how we calculate probabilities and why percentages about your personal certainty are irrelevant to the credence of a claim.... — Nickolasgaspar

I taught maths and computer science for 30+ years you pompus ass!
You struggle to type a legible sentence.
I don't need musings about probability from an interior designer.
Stick to picking curtains and floor coverings.
I am not discussing the credence of a claim from the standpoint of scientific rigor.
I referred to my own personal certainty regarding MY atheism.
You are the one who is desperately searching for points of minutia by conflating and inventing what I have previously typed.

lol No. ITs what logic tells us Hillary! Its what we should do with all claims and this is what con artist take advantage of when people with your logic do not demand evidence before a transaction!

I have no idea where did you get that from.. — SpaceDweller

Just type 'Adams first wife Lilith,' into a search engine. You will get plenty about her.

if I reject God then I gave up my freedom because I can no longer fix my mistakes — SpaceDweller

I reject god and I can fix mistakes, well most of them. Some mistakes people make cannot be fixed.

His first wife Lillith was a rebel as well. Eve was its second attempt and she was a rebel too. — universeness


I have no idea where did you get that from... — SpaceDweller

In the Hebrew bible mate!Adam was "married" twice!

rejecting God is one thing, making wrong choices is unrelated:
if I make a wrong choice I can fix it.
if I reject God then I gave up my freedom because I can no longer fix my mistakes. — SpaceDweller

- If I reject god will be his fault because he was unable to provide the evidence needed to convince me.
So when I die I will punish him for playing favorites (providing good evidence to other people).

ITs what logic tells us — Nickolasgaspar

Logic tells us nothing about the existence of gods.

Virtual anything can lead to that behavior. Being dogmatic tells nothing about your attitude — Hillary

Extremist behaviour does have many triggers, that's true, but dogmatic fervour about gods is certainly one of those main triggers.

Again, so what? You might appear in your videogame and destroy it. But why should they do that? Why they had created it in the first place? Should they destroy it because human gods fucked up a little — Hillary

I said I could appear as an avatar within a virtual world WITHOUT destroying it, so what do you mean?

Extremist behaviour does have many triggers, that's true, but dogmatic fervour about gods is certainly one of those main triggers. — universeness

Thus can be dogma about evolution.

I said I could appear as an avatar within a virtual world WITHOUT destroying it, so what do you mean? — universeness

Ah. Well, they could do so by means of QM.

I reject god and I can fix mistakes — universeness

Really? I think you misunderstood, how do you reconcile with God if you reject God for good?

Just type 'Adams first wife Lilith,' into a search engine. You will get plenty about her. — universeness

In the Hebrew bible mate!Adam was "married" twice! — Nickolasgaspar

hah right, and I'm santa claus.

- If I reject god will be his fault because he was unable to provide the evidence needed to convince me. — Nickolasgaspar

Why would creator have to do what creation says? or why would parent listen to commandments of a child?

Really? I think you misunderstood, how do you reconcile with God if you reject God for good? — SpaceDweller

If god exists its problem is going to be how it reconciles with us.

hah right, and I'm santa claus — SpaceDweller

Research it santa! (anagram of satan)

Thus can be dogma about evolution. — Hillary

I've never heard of a terrorist blowing stuff up in the name of evolution.

I taught maths and computer science for 30+ years you pompus ass! — universeness

then being that bad in Logic is inexcusable.

-"You struggle to type a legible sentence."
-Και εσυ δεν μπορείς να γραψεις μια λέξη στα ελληνικά αλλά δεν σε κρίνω!

-"I don't need musings about probability from an interior designer."
-Of course you need ....and my occupation is irrelevant.

-"Stick to picking curtains and floor coverings."
-ad hominem....these type of fallacies are expected by individuals who don't know how logic works.
Can you make any relevant argument? I have exposed your ability to reason and your ignorance on how to calculate probabilities but you fail to explain why you are so bad in this.

-"I referred to my own personal certainty regarding MY atheism."
-No you didn't, you referred to the credence of the claim....not your certainty., at least be honest when one can point directly to what you wrote.

hah right, and I'm santa claus. — SpaceDweller

...not an argument.

-"Why would creator have to do what creation says? or why would parent listen to commandments of a child? "
-because I am morally superior. The Cosmos knows that and he will force god to do some heavy explanation...

...not an argument. — Nickolasgaspar

how is fabrication an argument?

-because I am morally superior. — Nickolasgaspar

morally superior to whom?

A great economic war will be waged in the long run against everyone but the elite in the future...... and actual wars too, for the great reset ? — Eskander

Better to choose poverty before being forced into it.

hah right, and I'm santa claus. — SpaceDweller

not an argument mate.

-"morally superior to whom? "
-to the god of the bible...

I have the moral high ground, I have the intelligence to foresee how free will can affect behavior of biological species with drives and urges in a scarce and competitive environment....So I get to judge this magical made up being...not her

I've never heard of a terrorist blowing stuff up in the name of evolution. — universeness

What about all life killed in the name of science, the atom bomb, the knowledge terrorists possess to create bombs, the airplanes used in 9/11?

What about all life killed in the name of science, the atom bomb, the knowledge terrorists possess to create bombs, the airplanes used in 9/11? — Hillary

You are making really stupid and ignorant claims mrs Hillary!
Nobody did those things "in the name of Science" you buffoon!!
Science produces knowledge. What we humans decide to do with this knowledge is a different thing.!
Its Politics and economics (pseudo philosophical solutions) responsible for those calls.
Think before you post such ignorant claims Hillary!

and don't whine about for the labels I hung on your. Those are DESCRIPTIVE of your intellectual performance, not ad hominems. PLs think before opening your mouth and making accusations. ITs unacceptable for full grown individual to be unable to distinguish basic concepts.

Why you use the descriptive fallacy of calling me mrs. Hillary? I'm a mr, my dear Nickolast. So that's a first fallacy, based on ignorance. Concerning the description of my intellectual performances, compared to your standards of intelligence my brain world must be a logical horror indeed. But in relation to the real world it's better equipped and more reliable. My brain isn't a logically programmed structure, or simulating it is. Knowledge about the physical world can be produced only by interacting with it, and because of that, lives will be sacrificed to obtain it and once that knowledge is there you should not be surprised it is used in favor as well as against life. Simple as that.

descriptive fallacy???? hahahaha.
-" I'm a mr, my dear Nickolast."
-I don't know that, you were introduced as a 35yo woman.

Now the rest of your comment has nothing to do with your ignorant claim under the the artifact "in the name science". Do you have anything to say for your self....or we can all agree that you are guilty for posting bovine manure in these threads?

Isn't this the life of a well taken care of kid in his parent's house, where he owes nothing to anyone, and owns nothing, and there's always a well stocked pantry and a helpful parent ready to offer assistance?

I was more than ready to leave the safety of that nest, why would I want to recreate it on a societal level even if I could?