Reply to 3 Wonderful Guys

+AgeOfSuperboredom & +Brad White
& +Raul Alvarado

I am replying to you three in one go because you are all asking for the same thing. I appreciate you +Brad White that you are willing to be convinced either way. I cannot say for the remaining other two guys especially for the one who displayed "trollage" by calling me a moron. God bless you - you know who you are. You insult me and you don't even know me. You curse and I bless - we shall see who the more evidential moral one is becaue Atheism has no objective morals. God will judge between us - you will see.

1. THE CORRECT TESTING METHODOLOGY?
I appreciate you guys for providing testing-methodologies, observation analysis and repeatable/predictive/testable experiments that would prove that your Atheism to be Falsifiable - which is a requirement in terms of "logic" so as to avoid committing an Unfalsifiable Fallacy. Well done.
One fundamental rule in the Philosophy of Sciene is that:

The Correct Methodology must be applied to the correct (subject) test

Please read more on the philosophy of science (1) and notice that there are many aspects to science such as
- The Philosophy of Biology
- The Philosophy of Chemistry
- The Philosophy of Mathematics
Hence, to buttress my point that the testing methodology for different things are likewise different depending on the query you are trying to solve. This reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke:

Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke
Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson went on a camping trip.  After a good meal and a bottle of red wine, they lay down for the night and went to sleep.

Some hours later Holmes woke up, nudged his faithful friend and said, "Watson, I want you to look up at the sky and tell me what you see."  Watson said, "I see millions and millions of stars."  Sherlock said, "And what does that tell you?"

After a minute or so of pondering Watson said, "*Astronomically*, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets.  Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo.  Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three in the morning.  Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful and that we are small and insignificant.  Metereologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day today.  What does it tell you?"

Holmes was silent for about 30 seconds and said, "Watson, you idiot!  Someone has stolen our tent!"

IN THE SAME WAY ...
...Just like there are many mutually-inclusive ways to explain a certain thing in terms of science, there are likewise many ways to explain that same exact certain thing in terms of non-science just as you have seen in the example of the Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke. This is why I will repeat:

The Correct Methodology must be applied to the correct (subject or) test

2. PHILOSOPHY OF THE CORRECT TESTING METHODOLOGY
I am sure that you have heard about Occam's Razor? Which is a rule in the philosophy of science regarding the proper testing methodology which says that you should not multiply causes beyond necessity. (Please if you do not know the difference and similiarities between "necessity" and "sufficiency" please study about it (2). This is to reduce my verbiage because I want to give you the estimated credit that you are briliant/ intelligent guys and you understand what I am talking about.) That is to say:

for an explanation to be the best explanation to a certain query, YOU DON'T NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE EXPLANATION

Hence, this is why in science academic examinations, if you over explain your answers to the questions in the exams as if to show that you're a know-it-all, your tendency of failing that exam increases. So these are logical steps that we are applying even in our educational and academic systems and I believe that it is reasonable.

3. WHY HAVE I SAID ALL THIS? - Sequitur Contextual Relevance and Logical Applicability
I have said all this because I appreciate the fact you have done something not many Atheists like the silly Matt Dillihaunti would do. You have actually provide Falsifiable Testing Methodoogies, Observational Analysis and repeatable/predictive/testable experiments that can be applied to prove that:

Atheism can be proven false

Unlike the silly, die-hard tribe, fallacious and ignorant Matt Dillihanuti who says:

_"...Atheism... cannot be proven to be true..."

Such nonsense. Ok... these are the testing methodology you have provided and I going to scrutinise if they are PROPER TESTING METHODOLOGIES
1. All that is needed is for God to show Himself. get off his ass, come down from the clouds and show himself to us. It's that simple.
2. Or, lacking that, some compelling evidence. Forget proof ... All I want is some evidence.
3. I reject something that you have no proof for.
4. you god believers can't even make a simple argument.

1
This testing methodology fails on the grounds of necessity and sufficiency. That's like criminologists or archeologists using forensic science saying that: "_All that is needed is for the perpetrator to come out and show himself_"
No, investigators do not necessarily need the "subject" (eg Designer) as a sufficient conditon to infer the "object" (eg Design). So... until to ask for a proper testing methodology, I find this testinf methodology silly and absurd for people of intelligence.

2
There are two parts to this I want to address
1. Compelling Evidence
2. Evidence

2.1. Sorry, I am not here to "compel" your subjectivity as though I were some sort of magician here to impress you. That would be a subjectivist fallacy. Rather, I am here to lay down some good OBJECTIVE logic to posit the resonableness of blieving or theorising God.

2.2. The Christian has many arguement and they are done their own side of the burden of proof. It would be up to you to take the syllogisms of the Christian and tell us why it fails on objective logic while scrutinising our arguments with a large applicable list of fallacies. There are over 50+ Arguments for the existence of God. I will give you a blank cheque ... which one of them do you find fallacious? Such as
- The Cosmological Argument
- The Moral Argument
- The Teleological Argument
- The Argument from Intentionality
- Lots more etc

Pick one and tell me which one you find fallacious and we can scrutinise it together in a mutually-respected, civilised and intellectual manner.

3
I am assuming that you are intelligent enough to know the difference between "proof" and "evidence". I am sorry, I do not have any "proof" like a mathematical proof such as saying 1 + 1 = God ... no... rather, I have Philosophical Arguments with Supporting Scientific Evidences. If you want proof, I'm sorry you are barking up the wrong tree and you need to look for someone omniscient enough to "proof" God to you to a degree of absolute certainty. There are many things that are reasonable to believe even though there are no proof for them (check your dictionary semantic for proof)
- There is no proof that makes a poem beautiful.
- There is no proof that you are not a brain in a vat.
- There is no proof that my wife loves me nor that I love her.
HOWEVER, it is reasonable to accept the evidences just as they are ie, by faith (not to be confused with blindfaith).

4
Let's play the sherlock holmes game:
- Intellectually, that is ignorant of the christian position. We have made arguments
- Socially, that is insulting
- Metaphysically, that is your subjective opinion - keep it to yourself.
- Morally, you have just told a lie.
- Experientially you are just naive.
- Empirically, NO.

Lastly, I have a feeling that someone is deleting my replies... so I will back it up on my blog (3) and if I do not see this argument here the next time I come here... then I will know for sure that someone is toying with me because my arguments are so true, they cannot swallow the bitter-truth due to their emotional appeal/ crutches.

God bless you all and I look forward to your replies.

REFERENCES
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
(3) http://rdlogo.blogspot.com

Why can't he see that I have replied him?

+Bass-D C

PLEASE REPLY

I have to thank you once again for re-reminding me on the question and showing me this great grace - what do you know? Atheists can show their emotional-cructches called acts of kindness too even though they have no non-fallacious way of ontologically justifying/ grounding it in OBJECTIVE terminologies hahahaha (just teasing you).

Secondly ... I do not believe that anybody has 100% conviction power over the subjectivity over another person. But this is an analogy and it does not apply to this objective real life - so I will play with you

Is this objectively moral or Inmoral?

This is objectivly immoral of this analogical you. And I want to lay MORE emphasis on the fact that you used the word "objective" to as an adjective for moral.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Here how I come to that conclusion by reshaping this argument (1):

THE MORAL ARGUEMENT

1. It is more reasonable to believe that moral obligations come from moral laws givers.

2. To be Objective means to be true IRRESPECTIVE of if everybody thinks subjectively that it is wrong.

3. To be true means that you have to endure constantly and neccessaily without neccesarily being contingent on physical reality.

4. God is Constant and  Necessry Being.

5. "Persons" intrinsically imbible morality into their nature.

6. God is Person.

7. God is a constant and necessary being because HE deped on no one and nothing else to exist.

8. God is the best inference (OR reference point) to grounding true objective values because HE is a constant and necessary being.

9. Objective values and duties DO exists.

10. Therefore, deductively, it necessarily follows that it is more reasonable to believe that God exists as the best ontological grounding for objective moral values and duties.

more justification

Your analogical self in the example is objectively immoral because your actions go anti- to the actions that God would generally take in that condition - ie, given that there are no other sufficient moral reasons God will do the opposite. However, I do not see any other sufficient moreal reasons why you moral-goodness would come out from being like "satan" [name meaning "accuser"] - who convinces people not to take morally good actions but later on the day of judgement, would accuse them/ sue them in God's court for being convinced by him in the first place. If you have any additionaly moral sufficiency of why what the analogical-you did to Jame is good, just and fair to James (seeing that you have 100% conviction power over him) then please ... give the reasons. Maybe James is in on this too and he is willingly allowing you to 100% convince him into evil knowing that you would sue him later on. No different than you know that the devil will sue you for not believing in God but you still choose not to believe in God by allowing the devil to 100% convince you to believe that God is not real - just an example, I do not want to add anything into the mouth of your analogy - i'm just expanding IF sufficient moral reasons justify you from doing this evil deed.

This is to say that God is not like the deceiving-god of Islam. God does not lie nor deceive:

Numbers 23:19

God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

And since your analogical moral actions are nothing like God's Objective, unchanging and morally good actions - you are therefore immoral.

Here is a link on how Atheism FAILS on grounds of morality (2).

So... why don't you tell me... are your analogical actions OBJECTIVELY moral or immoral on an atheistic platform without fallacious appealing to:

- Population: and saying "that's how everyone thinks"

- Emotions/ Pain: and saying "if it does not hurt/ harm anyone" as if people who hurt/ harm themselves in the gym are objectively evil

- subjectivism/ relativism: because this destroys the original question as to the "objectiveness" of morality.

I look forward to your reply.

God bless you

REFERENCES

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-aqnDHqqA

Mr Rat Can't Just see it

+Rolo Beorn
Lastly... you did not see that the cambrian explosion is still debunking Evolution Theory by Natural Selection (ETBNS) - be it Darwin's or not. That Darwin Quote I gave you

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

This Quote still applies to evolution theory by natural selection - as long as naturla selection is involved. Unless you want to talk about supernatural selection hahaha... why? Because you already called the fact I used Darwin's exact words "stupid".

You did not and have not tackled my arguments even for this context of ETBNS. Seems to me like you have a better explanation for the Cambrian Explosion that is not "Intelligent Design". Please, lay down your strong arguments and stop resorting to Argumentums Ad Lapidems or Baseless/ Blanket Assertions.

+88rat88
Sometimes some arguments are so fallacious, I could write a book about them.

Greetings Spanky.
Greetings "rat". oh wow! will you look at that? It seems like what they say is true:
the apple does not fall far from the tree
I don't have to go to far to give a nickname you will be pleased with - you don't have to look far, it's already in your chosen&satisfied name - rat.

While you're educating yourself on the meaning of "troll", do yourself a favor and look up "strawman" as well, because you're using it wrong.

Here is wikipedia's take on straw man (2)

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1]

The Category-Context that was advanced = Proving the Supernatural
The Category-Context that was not advanced = Biblical slavery

So for you to say

"1) I've read your stuff on this thread long enough for it to register on my bullshit meter as the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo that it is."

means that you were displaying your lack of tact to present coherent rebuttals to the context of our discussion. Using a guilt-by-association fallacy for "all my discussions" in this thread is just fallacious. We aren't even talking about the same category context anymore. That's like killing your parents because you had a dream that they wanted to kill you - totally irrelevant. Maybe you should be the one to study what a straw man actually means.

Precisely Spanky, and thanks for proving my point.
You're welcome. I was not "proving" your point. I was "quoting" you. The only point I'm proving here is your straw man. Unless of course, you are agreeing that I have proven that you have made a contextual straw man ... then good - finally ... you notice.

This is now the third time I'm pointing out to you that this statement of yours stands alone as proof that you do not understand science.
And this is now the third time I am pointing out to you that you made a straw man by jumping the gun. Did you not see

BE PATIENT I'M STILL EDITING THIS AND THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE

when I was replying to +Rolo Beorn . If I told you that I can make your wallet disappear in your back pocket without touching you, would you say "That is a nonsensical and stupid thing to say"? Or would you rather say "I'll be patient, that burden of proof is on you, please demonstrate". And if you were patient enough to see the reply I gave +Rolo Beorn , +Rolo Beorn nor you have debunked the 4 scientific arguments I advanced about evidence for the supernatural world. You are like the guy who keeps shouting "That's nonsensical, that's stupid" while I have sucessfully stolen your wallet without touching you. Keep deceiving yourself all day long in your emotional crutch. Secondly, you never produced a counter-argument to the fact that I dichotomised your argument and my argument. This is what I said:

YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH
I somewhat agree with what you are saying to a degree AND you are admitting the limitations of science. Well done. HOWEVER... that statement (C1) was not suggestive of the dealings  / methodology of science, but rather it was suggestive of the usefulness of science ie, what science can be used for. For example, the methodology of the keyboard you are typing with is for typing - simple typing; but! the usefulness of the keyboard can be used smash someone's face and break their teeth. Here, we see the keyboard being extruded from the constraints of what the keyboard is concerned about into somewhat-metaphysical-other-things the keyboard can be used to do. Anybody that is a sentient creature can use science for many other thing
- Hitler can use science to justify killing jews
- Dylann Roof can use science to justify killing people in church
- Theists can use it to posit the supernatural world
- Scientist can use science to advocate using the ebola virus to commit mass genocide (R2)

Do you want me to go on? Or are you convinced of your strawman in your confusion between what science is concerned about and what it can be used to posit?

Have I see any response to this? No - rather you appeal to me ego which I will address later. Maybe a simple - oh, I understand, you're right - I see the fallacy of my own thinking now. Thanks .... I admit intellectual honesty. Maybe a kinda response like that. But you keep commiting an avoiding the issue fallacy of the fact that the methodology of sciece (the things science is concern about) is NOT the same thing as the usefulness of science - the things science can be used for eg proving/ buttressing a point - irrespective of whether it is scientific or not. Last time I check, Lawrence Krauss tried to use science to prove that (some)thing could come from not-thing. That's like saying love could come out of not-love. A scientific impossibility and philosophical jargon, yet he tried and you atheists call it "scientific". But you call the fact I am trying to prove God can be proven scientifically nonsense? I see your bias confirmation - Double Standards.

Also, you did not object to the fact that I accurately defined you as a troll. Nice. You know that wise adage?

Silence is the best answer for a fool

Well done. But rather, you congratulated me that I am indeed getting an education, an elightenment into the proper definition of what a troll is. I believe that you now see how much of a troll you are but you are too ashamed to admit it that I have defined it and your actions accurately. That's alrihgt ... as long as you are changing... you are forgiven.

My sole reason for bringing up the slavery context was to illustrate to you that I've been a contributing participant in this thread since the beginning, and therefore not a troll. No more, no less.
Well, thanks for admitting your intentioanlity fallacy. You think appealing to your intentions rather than the objective & logical way your argument was used is a good arguement? Honest of you yes but in the objective context of logical discourse, you committed a straw man. That's like me saying for example "My sole (intention or) reason for talking to you today in all this harsh way is to make you laugh. Come on, laugh with me hahahahahahahahaha - you must be feeling very ticklish now right? hahahahahahahahahaha " - nonsense. I don't care about your intentions or sole purposes. You committed trolling in that insulting manner you responded to me and you committed a contextual straw man and it is as clear as day to any rational thinking person reading our discussion flow context.

Are all of your arguments so ridiculous and knee-jerk?
Let me answer it simply for you - No

You don't impress me nearly enough to make me bother reading the rest of your girthful verbosity.
You are mistaken, I'm not here to impress you. Now we have that misunderstanding out of the way we can make progress.
Next, this is a reverse-proof by verbosity fallacy because you are submitting to me that my argument must be false because it is too complex and verbouse to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. I'm sorry... just because I write big, does not invalidate the objective logic of my arguments. And you have not even responded to any of my argument. Hence you are appealing to ignorance with the next fallacy as follows:

Scanning it suggests that you like to stroke your ego by fancying you're some kind of grandmaster on logic and logical fallacies.
Here you show your contentment with ignorance as you do not study my arguments but you choose to "scan" through it - thereby producing a limited scope fallacy. No wonder you are always attacking straw men. You are not listening to me. You're like an intellectual baby with his intellectual fingers in his intellectual ears going lalalalalalal - i cannot hear you. And you later say

And if that delusion makes you feel good, more power to you. It pairs nicely with your god delusion.

Well... my Scanner-who-would-not-study-my-arguments-but-make-unwarranted-assumptions-about-them ... if that delusion feels good, feels more powerful, helps you sleep well at night, helps you answer all of life's toughest metaphysical questions of origin, meaning, purpose, morality and destiny - if you are enjoying all those emotional crutches --- please, feel free to used your atheistic non-existent-but-existent freewill to choose to continue in your delusion of no-God. It does not pair nicely with you but hey ... if the intellectual mud and poop is fine for your face - please, feel free to use as much as you can - just don't force others to think the way you think.

"That depends entirely on you Spanky. Are you done stroking your ego? And if so, are you ready to learn what a strawman is?"
Mr Rat. Appealling to my ego - ie, appealing to my personal incredulity - it says NOTHING about if my arguments are right or wrong. Am I really reading this? Like, how low can your logical rebuttal tact go? I too could appeal to your ego and it would not be touching our logical arguments not one bit. Whether I am a master of recognising logical fallacies does not invalidate my logic one bit. That means that you have not been reading my arguments all this time, you have been reading my ego. I'm sorry but the objectivity of my rational and logical discourse does not have anything whatsoever to do with my subjective ego. I just can't really understand you - OK OK - Calm down... let's do this better ... "respond. to. my. arguments. not. my. personality" OK? Is that clear enough for you Mr rat?
Lastly, tell me what you think about my definition of strawman - and feel free to present your own to me if you have something better to teach me.

Nope.
This is another discussion context where I was talking about the aggressive way you respond to "God bless you" even though it is meaningless and pointless to you. OK - no ... you self-identify as someone who is not affected with "God bless you". I accept that as existential evidence of you self-identity... however, your past actions spoke contrary. But if you say so. Ok - I reasonbly accept.

This is called wishful thinking, an essential component of your worldview.
Here is wikipedia's take on wishful-thinking fallacy (3).

Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality. It is a product of resolving conflicts between belief and desire.[1]

So, in the "God bless you" context, you say my conclusion that "you responded to "God bless you" with such aggression AS IF this seemingly meaningless and seemingly pointless kindly gesture was actually effective in your worldview" - you said my conclusion is wishful thinking? Let us test that by the standards that make wishful thinking REALLY wishful thinking.
1. Does it please me that you believe in God? No - not necessarily
2. Did I appeal to evidence of how you aggressively insulted me for saying "God bless you"? Yes - the evidence is as clear as day in this discussion thread.
3. Do I have a rational reason to infer from the evidence that you "might" just believe in God due to the way you responded to "God bless you"? Yes - the aggressive evidence rationally points to it.
4. Is the evidence/ conclusion based in reality? Oh yeah ... all one has to do is see our past dicussions thread where I was aggresively insulted for saying God bless you.

After analysising the criterias that make wishful thinking... did I really commit a wishful thinking fallacy? no
Maybe you are the one committing a wishful-thinking fallacy in asserting that I am committing a wishful thinking fallacy by not demonstrating it with concrete arguments.

(PS: Did you see the way I rebut your argument? Maybe if you tried this once in a while, you will make sense... for now, you are just allowing my fallacy arguments against you to slide pass you freely ... you are looking more like the illogical one with so much fallacies on the side of the fidurative-debate-tennis-court - demontrate how any of  my arguemnts are wrong rather than just making baseless / blanket assertion and argumentum ad lapidems).

Believe it or not, not everyone who mocks you is in rebellion against your god man, or in denial about his alleged existence.
Red-herring - this is because you are attempting to distract us from the contextual-topic at hand by introducing a separate argument you believe is easier to speak about. What has this got to do with the "God bless you" context? Do you know how to make a rebuttal? Ok- I accept that as a fact ... happy Mr Rat? Good

In fact, the overwhelming majority of nonbelievers that reject your poisonous religion do so because... (are you ready for this Spanky?) IT'S BULLSHIT.
Argumentum Ad Lapidem and Red-Herring ... not once have you addressed my arguments. You just like talking anything without thinking right? Mr Rat Scanner came to that conclusion by scanning through my arguments eh? Yeah ... very logical. And thanks for speaking on behalf of every nonbeliever - seems like you are very omniscient and you know who all the non-believers are with absolute certainty - yeah ... very logical.

And people like you are just too dishonest and brainwashed to see it.
Sweeping Generalisatioin Fallacy... Mr Omniscient Rat. I am sorry but there are no "people like me". I am unique. You need to read what I said to +Rolo Beorn about what Neil DeGrasse Tyson said in a video:

(R1) Time: 0:13 - 0:58  I'm not an "-ism". I just - I think for myself. The moment when someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you, and when you want to have a conversation they will assert that they already know everything important there is to know about you because of that association. And that's not the way to have a conversation. I'm sorry. It's not. I'd rather we explore each other's ideas in real time rather than assign a label to it and assert you know what's gonna happen in advance.

Mr Tyson says to you "that's not how to have a conversation".
Finally, since you are not the only one to make fallacies so bad that I have to write so much about them, (yet you don't debunk a simple argument but you debunk my person - fallacious) let me end with a funny pun as I appeal to my intentionality and try to make you laugh - this is my sole purpose:
People like me are this-honest and we have a washed-brain becaue we are not blinded by a dirty brain - we can see it - that is to say, "dirty and ratty brain people, cannot see it".

hahahahahahahahaha - in my subjective opinion, I'm the funniest man in the world.

God bless you

REFERENCES
(1) Darwin, C (1859). On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. London: Murray. pp. 306–308. ISBN 1-60206-144-0. OCLC 176630493.
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (R2) http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/030406massculling.htm
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

(R1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

BAD LOGIC AS IF TO REPROVE EVOLUTION SCIENCE

+Rolo Beorn
What's the point of quoting Darwin?
Quoting Darwin is like quoting Newton when you're discuss gravity...it's stupid.
Did you not see the NASA reference where I said

NASA released a paper about Assumptions, Models, and the Scientific Method and after it gave a good objective explanation of what a theory is, it said:
This does not mean that the theory is wrong, it just means that the theory has limited applicability. (1)

Are you telling me that because I quoted the exact words of Darwin (which is like Newton) ... and since they are not my words... are you telling me that Darwin and Newton are stupid? Can you appeal to a proper authority and tell me with credible reasons how you logically achieved that conclusion. Because I don't accept blanket assertions as loically valid. Thanks

His idea of genetics was even wrong.
I know you are not talking about genetics if not that would be a strawman. However, you are using genetics to talk about something else - ie ... how Darwin gets scientific things wrong. However, if you are comitting a category mistake by using one wrong category-context (genetics) to debunk another category-context (evolution) just because a certain incredulous person was associated with both of them... this is a certain kind of guilt-by-association fallacy called sweeping-generalization fallacy. Therefore, just because darwin was wrong about genetics, does not necessarily and convincingly connote that he was wrong about evolution. I do not see the logical connetion. Each category-context, in my opinion, should be assessed objective case-by-case.

Those websites/articles burst with stupidity.
Blanket Assertion and Argumentum Ad Lapidem. Please demonstrate with logically sound premises and a coherent conclusion. Thanks. I cannot accept that argument convincingly at facevalue. Personally, I believe that in the "respected" case-by-case AND CategoryContext-by-CategoryContext ... the references fulfil their independent job respectively.

They are all about religitardism.
Oh wow! ALL of them? Do I really see the word all in that assertion? Wow! ALL of them indeed. You mean like the references of NASA. NASA is a religious-retard. How did you know? That's why the religitard-NASA is reaching out and reaching for the stars and mars but atheism is reaching for the pits of "nothing". Why? Atheism makes no (positive) claims and it shouldn't even make a claim about Science. Neil DeGrasse Tyson showed us how "science" is decreasing in American Conincidentally with the increase of Atheism in the same era. I'm not making a claim/ conclusion of causality... just a simple observation and fact ... coincidentally (2).
Secondly... Many of the other links are rightly associated with people of religion but calling them a religious retard just shows your unprovable blanket assertions, guilt by association fallacy and ignorance about how very not-retarded christians are.
Let Neil deGrasse Tyson educate you. Here are some of his words in (3)

(R1) Time: 0:13 - 0:58  I'm not an "-ism". I just - I think for myself. The moment when someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you, and when you want to have a conversation they will assert that they already know everything important there is to know about you because of that association. And that's not the way to have a conversation. I'm sorry. It's not. I'd rather we explore each other's ideas in real time rather than assign a label to it and assert you now what's gonna happen in advance.

or look at reference (4) of Neil deGrasse Tyson

(R2) Time 0:12 - 2:50 Most Religious people in America fully embrace science, so the argument that religion has some issues with science applies to a smalle fraction of those who declare that they're religious. They just happen to be a very vocal fraction so you get the impression that there are more of them than there actually is. It's actually the minority of religious people who reject science or feel threatened by it or ... restrict where science can go. The rest, you know, are just fine with science and has been that way ever since the beginning ... there's been a happy coexistence for centuries... so this notion that ... if you're a scientist you're an atheist or if you are religious you're not a scientist, that's just EMPIRICALLY FALSE.

The reason I gave you (R1) and (R2) is because you have added a (logically unjustified/ unwarranted) "-ism" (namely religitardism) as a fallacious sweeping generalisation to all my references (including that of NASA), according to Neil, that's not how to have a conversation. I'd rather we explore each other's ideas in real time rather than assign a label to it and assert, you now what's gonna happen in advance. Secondly ... the idea that religous people are retards in the area of science is empirically false. So... you see why all you have done so far today is nothing but baseless, unwarranted, unjustifiaed assertions without a single reference link to buttress you. Please... give a counter-demonstration to my demonstrations. I feel like I'm the only one making sense today and hitting homerun with the points but you are only making unproved assertions.

Can you give an example of something science observes and can't explain?
Oh with pleasure and with ease
(PS: notice the question has nothing to do with the previous 4 evidences I gave concerning the supernatural world... but here goes)
1. Why do cows always face north or south while eating? (5)
2. How does the Placebo Effect work?
3. Why does it take more genes to make a tomoato than to make a human?
4. How liquid water very existed early in Earth’s history.
5. Why the sun’s atmosphere is so much hotter than its surface. (6)
6. Why do we yawn?
7. What are the scientific measurements of love or hate or morality?
8. What scientific experiment makes a poem beautiful or ugly?
9. Why does hot water freeze faster than ordinary water?
10. Why do negetive thought negetively affect your health?
11. Why are there more right-handed people than left-handed? (7)
12. How do the babies of migrating animals know exactly where to migrate in the same place their dead parents used to be? eg Monarch Butterfly Migration
13. What began the universe?
14. What scientific empirical data prove that my mind is not dreaming up this reality right now or proves that I am not stuck in a matrix?
15. How did life start on earth?
16. Why is our universe so fine-tuned?
17. Why is our universe written in the language of mathematics?
18. Why is it possible, under hypnotism, for your brain to register experiences that do not happen to you in the external real world? For example, the hypnotic pain of being on fire or being stabbed with a knife

Oh and if that does not satisfy you then answer the question I posited to you earlier
19. Why does SAAAD occur when there is no-physical or no-material contact between quantum entangled objects?
20. Why is our mathematics coherent with String Theory and its 11 dimension AND super-string theory and it 11 dimensions?
21. Why are over 90% of our eminent and credible historians believing in the fact that Jesus existed? and that HE resurrected?

That's just a few. I wonder when your eyes will open to see that there are phenonmenas in science that science cannot explain.

If God is the cause for the universe and if he intelligent designed evolution then you should apply the scientific method on God.
You're right ... I was saying the same thing about Mr Ford - the inventor of the ford engine. If Mr Ford is the cause of the Ford Engine and if he intelligently designed the ford engine then you should apply the automotive mathematical laws and formula of internal combustion to Mr Ford. Makes pretty much more sense to me.

Also, Shakespear wrote the book of romeo and juliet ... we should also apply the rules of paper and ink to Mr Shakespear. Makes pretty much sense to me.

No... just no. This is a case of bad logic. Mr Ford is not an engine and Shakespear is not a fictional story. Also, God is much more than Science and the scientific method does not necessarily apply to HIM. This is what is called a Category Error/ Mistake because you make an ontological error in which attributes belonging to the category:Science are presented as if they belong to a different catergory:God.

God bless you

REFERENCE
(1) http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate/scimodule/Cosmogony/CosmogonyPDF/AppendixB.pdf
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amht5jdSY10
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbvDYyoAv9k
(5) http://listverse.com/2015/04/10/10-fascinating-mysteries-of-life-that-science-cant-explain/
(6) http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/15-things-that-scientists-just-cant-explain#.aj0yy0qvp
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiYCgVKioI4

ODIN BLESS YOU VS GOD BLESS YOU

+88rat88
Lastly...

Odin Bless you

is of no-significance to me. It is meaningless and pointless because according to my worldview, Odin is either non-existent or a demon already defeated by Jesus - and demons cannot bless - that's like saying "May Marriage make you a Bachelor". That is a logical contradiction because marriage does not make you a bachelor by those intrinsic definitions. To me, no one can truly bless except God. However, you will not see me so aggrevated and insulting others for something so pointless and meaningless to me. Since you guys displayed aggrevation over "God bless you" - a concept that you deem meaningless and pointless and inexistent in your worldview ... then you have just proven to me that you just know, somewhere right down deep there - that you concur to the fact that God actually exists.

If you like, get angry again to reply to this comment and prove to me all the more how much "God" really affects your reality.

God bless you

MR FIGHTER HAS A BONE TO PICK

+88rat88

1) I've read your stuff on this thread long enough for it to register on my bullshit meter as the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo that it is. I don't anticipate that improving appreciably, no matter how much "editing" you do
Sorry ... Strawman, we are not talking about "my other stuff I wrote down here long enough" ... we are talking of the immediate context where you began by quoting me

"The spiritual world exists - science proves it - and you cannot handle the truth"

The other category context we were talking of = Biblical Slavery
This category context we are talking of = Proof of the Supernatural

Using the other context to judge this context just shows that you do not know how to follow your arguments - and end up in a slippery slope fallacy and a Category Error. Using another context or appealing to my personal incredulity is a totally unwarranted reason to judge the objective credibility of the current category context arguments.

2) Do you know what a troll is? I'm not a troll, I'm one of the original posters on this thread, calling out the creator of this video on his lies and disingenuity. He's too delusional and cowardly to openly acknowledge them.
 Here is wikipedia's definition
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

Here is a demonstration of how you responded to the argument you were trying to give:
(C1) "The spiritual world exists - science proves it - and you cannot handle the truth"

And this is your response:

(C2) Thank you for demonstrating your lack of understanding of what science is.

Logically, someone who wanted to coherently debunk (C1) would say something like this

Science only deals with the natural world and not the supernatural world in my opinion

and we could have takes a non-inflammatory, non-extraneous, non-off-topic and mutually respective communication from there. But nooo.... you just had to involve an Ad-Hominem and tell me how stupid I am by saying (C2). In my opinion, coming from one unrelated topic and into this topic like that, is what I call a troll.

3) Even if I read none of your previous posts, the fact remains that when you make silly comments like "The spiritual world exists - science proves it" (C3), it can be safely concluded that you do not understand science.
By who's objective standard is C3 silly? By your subjective mind? That's a subjectivist fallacy. Yes, that conclusion can be made based on your subjective qualia ... this is a free country ... anybody can come to any conclusion without an objective standard even if they use a fallacious, irrational, hate-breathing and intolerant subjectivist fallacy.

YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH
I somewhat agree with what you are saying to a degree AND you are admitting the limitations of science. Well done. HOWEVER... that statement (C1) was not suggestive of the dealings  / methodology of science, but rather it was suggestive of the usefulness of science ie, what science can be used for. For example, the methodology of the keyboard you are typing with is for typing - simple typing; but! the usefulness of the keyboard can be used smash someone's face and break their teeth. Here, we see the keyboard being extruded from the constraints of what the keyboard is concerned about into somewhat-metaphysical-other-things the keyboard can be used to do. Anybody that is a sentient creature can use science for many other thing
- Hitler can use science to justify killing jews
- Dylann Roof can use science to justify killing people in church
- Theists can use it to posit the supernatural world
- Scientist can use science to advocate using the ebola virus to commit madd genocide (2)

Do you want me to go on? Or are you convinced of your strawman in your confusion between what science is concerned about and what it can be used to posit?

God bless you

REFERENCES
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
(2) http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/030406massculling.htm

RESPONSE TO STUPID DARWINIAN EVOLUTION BYT NATURAL SELECTION

+Rolo Beorn
Let me reply to this since I'm still in the mood of providing better couter-arguments to your nonsenses.

Evolution is a nice example.
Evolution is an observable fact.
The theory of evolution is the study of that observable fact and it  contains the explanation.

NASA released a paper about Assumptions, Models, and the Scientific Method and after it gave a good objective explanation of what a theory is, it said:

This does not mean that the theory is wrong, it just means that the theory has limited applicability. (1)

Yes! I agree with you that science OBSERVES many things but science does not EXPLAIN everything it observes. I am sure that you are talking about Darwin's Evolution Theory By Natural Selection (DETBNS). Well, I have good news for you ... it's just a theory ... and lest you start getting in on my face on what a Scientific Theory really is... read reference (1) again and be assured that I know. Listen to what Darwin said:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

And hey! Guess what!? The Cambrian Explosion stands as one of the major threats to your beloved DETBNS as there are no better counter-arguments to support your beloved Darwin. In 1859, even Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against the theory of evolution by natural selection. (2) This is why another theory is questioning the tyranny of methodological naturalism and using a much more forensic scince approach to posit "design in evolution" - this theory is called Evolution Theory by Intelligent Design (ETBID) which seems to me to accurate description of the stupidity of DETBNS (3). In fact, credible, logically thought-out and peer-reviewed scientific papers have been produced by ETBID proponents and you can check them out as you feel like in (4)

(not to be confused with evolution theory by intellignet "designer" because that is not what they are arguing for. One does not necessarily connote the other - one is a subject (designer), the other is an object (design))

God bless you

REFERENCES
(1) http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate/scimodule/Cosmogony/CosmogonyPDF/AppendixB.pdf
(2) Darwin, C (1859). On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. London: Murray. pp. 306–308. ISBN 1-60206-144-0. OCLC 176630493.
(3) http://www.masters.edu/media/414779/world-proof%20origins%201.29.13.pdf
(4) http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/