How so?

Sadegh wrote:I sure do love ATHEIST integers, especially those ATHEIST Mersenne primes.

One things for sure, you dont like honest discussions.

Sadegh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Sadegh wrote:It sure has, which is why you are unable to come up with any examples.

QED
Why would I bother, when you've ignored it the first 3 or more times its been pointed out to you?

Really all you have to do is go back and click the quote button, which requires no more effort and in fact less than these other posts you make against me.

Really, all you had to do was read the multiple post where this has been explained to you and then not dishonestly pretend they dont exist.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Sadegh wrote:I sure do love ATHEIST integers, especially those ATHEIST Mersenne primes.

One things for sure, you dont like honest discussions.

Don't you just love ATHEIST numbers, Thomas? I am also especially fond of ATHEIST transcendental numbers.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Really, all you had to do was read the multiple post where this has been explained to you and then not dishonestly pretend they dont exist.

Burden of proof is on you to find these posts Thomas

Sadegh wrote:How so?

You wrote:

...because all properties can be ascribed to any objects at all, they must be black in particular.

The conclusion (they must be black in particular) does not follow from the premise (all properties can be ascribed to any objects)

Sadegh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Really, all you had to do was read the multiple post where this has been explained to you and then not dishonestly pretend they dont exist.

Burden of proof is on you to find these posts Thomas

Burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that you've any interest in an honest discussion.

Sadegh wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:Bullshit! You just didn't want to respond to this because it's full of things that you can't refute. Probably over your head a bit.

No it's not over my head.

Then respond to it.

So, here we have examples of individuals saying folks in the New World don't have any sort of religion, which is as much to the point as Christopher Columbus thinking he had landed in what was it? India? Cathay?

People who are clueless about the natives they are interacting with will wildly misjudge them. News at 11.

So, now your calling something that you laughed at obvious?

Onyx8 wrote:

Sadegh wrote:How so?

You wrote:

...because all properties can be ascribed to any objects at all, they must be black in particular.

The conclusion (they must be black in particular) does not follow from the premise (all properties can be ascribed to any objects)

Well they don't reflect any light so what does that make them?

Oldskeptic wrote:So, now your calling something that you laughed at obvious?

It wasn't "obvious". But no I do concede that at least some of those who explored the New World didn't consider the natives as having any sort of religion, that much is clear now. The only problem is it doesn't make religion any less universal.

Sadegh wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:

Sadegh wrote:How so?

You wrote:

...because all properties can be ascribed to any objects at all, they must be black in particular.

The conclusion (they must be black in particular) does not follow from the premise (all properties can be ascribed to any objects)

Well they don't reflect any light so what does that make them?

It makes your conclusion not follow from your premise.

If we can ascribe all properties to any objects to whatsoever (frequently claimed by the "babies are atheists" crowd), and color is certainly a property, what does failing to reflect light make an object in terms of color?

Sadegh wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:If you grew up in a Islamic environment then it prepared you for accepting good and evil spirits and the worship of spirits that need placating. Shinto has that and so does Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Navajo and Pueblo religions do not.

And this makes them vastly difficult to understand how?

I didn't say anything about them being vastly difficult to understand. I said some religions could be incomprehensible in terms of another religion. You keep changing the meaning of what I wrote to suit yourself.

Oldskeptic wrote:No? You're defending an idea that religion can somehow be legitimized by being a beneficial evolutionary adaptation

Oops, there's that is/ought problem.

I don't know if you've noticed but in other threads I've talked a lot about how normal human behavior shaped by evolution needs to be gutted, scrapped and replaced with something else.

I have voiced support for eugenics, something that you are probably aware of, having argued against it to me on these boards, as well as literal ethnic cleansing carried out by robots.

As a result of all of this, you have absolutely no grounds for saying that I'm "defending" religion because I think it's an adaptation of sorts for our now thoroughly irrelevant ancestral environment.

When you use arguments developed by religious apologists you are defending religious ideas.

An adaptation of sorts? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? You cite Rossano who doesn't call it an adaption of sorts. He writes that it is an adaption at the gene level, and even includes his explanation of how the adaption came about through natural selection of the most religious minded.

Oldskeptic wrote:You use a psychologist asserting unproven, untested, and un-peer-reviewed nonsense about gene level selection for religion.

So it's scholarly papers you want. Very well:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ad ... sdt=0%2C39

Oh and inb4 b-b-b-but they don't all support your thesis. No shit. Of course they don't. Some certainly do however.

Which ones? What do they say? How do they support your [hypo]thesis? I've lain out what Rossano needs to do in order to make his assertions more than mere speculation. All he has to do is show that Shamanism was actually a significant promoter of survival until successful reproduction. Others that you think support you, such as D.S. Sloan, promote the idea of group/multi level selection where it is religion and cultures that evolve above the gene level.

Oldskeptic wrote:an extremely biased Christian

Extremely biased because?

Because he's a devote Christian that says humans evolved to be religious, but they evolved to be that way according to God's plan. He interprets findings in 3-year-olds of assignment of purpose and intent as evidence for young children having innate belief in God.

Sadegh wrote:If we can ascribe all properties to any objects to whatsoever (frequently claimed by the "babies are atheists" crowd), and color is certainly a property, what does failing to reflect light make an object in terms of color?

Acoloured.

I do not accept the assertion that the lack of a property is per se a property.

Oldskeptic wrote:I didn't say anything about them being vastly difficult to understand. I said some religions could be incomprehensible in terms of another religion.

Totally incomprehensible? Not really. It's not like absolutely nothing is shared in common.

Oldskeptic wrote:An adaptation of sorts? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

An evolutionary adaptation?

Oldskeptic wrote:Which ones?

You could start here for example:

http://www.stephenksanderson.com/docume ... on_001.pdf

Oldskeptic wrote:Others that you think support you, such as D.S. Sloan, promote the idea of group/multi level selection where it is religion and cultures that evolve above the gene level.

I have no problem with the concept of evolution acting above the level of the organism.

Oldskeptic wrote:Because he's a devote Christian that says humans evolved to be religious, but they evolved to be that way according to God's plan. He interprets findings in 3-year-olds of assignment of purpose and intent as evidence for young children having innate belief in God.

And all this time I thought it was things like their mention of things like "pre-life" in fairly elaborate detail.

Onyx8 wrote:

Sadegh wrote:If we can ascribe all properties to any objects to whatsoever (frequently claimed by the "babies are atheists" crowd), and color is certainly a property, what does failing to reflect light make an object in terms of color?

Acoloured.

Yes. Right. Exactly. The property of color does not apply to integers, just like the property of religious belief, one way or the other, does not apply to babies.

We could call them ... "anatheist".

...or "an atheist"

Sadegh wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:

Sadegh wrote:If we can ascribe all properties to any objects to whatsoever (frequently claimed by the "babies are atheists" crowd), and color is certainly a property, what does failing to reflect light make an object in terms of color?

Acoloured.

Yes. Right. Exactly. The property of color does not apply to integers, just like the property of religious belief, one way or the other, does not apply to babies.

We could call them ... "anatheist".

Ah, so when you earlier said "no" to the concept of 'acoloured' you were incorrect?