Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Rawlings, you have a really nasty habit of spewing crap that I never said. Then you strut around like Rick Flair calling me names because you refuted arguments I never made.
You're insane.
The fundamental axioms of (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (comprehensively, the principle of identity) logically hold true. The principle of identity is necessarily justified true belief/knowledge. It holds absolutely and immutably true; it must, therefore, hold true ultimately. There is no argument whatsoever that you can successfully assert to the contrary. Any argument to the contrary will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively prove the opposite is true, i.e., that the principle of identity is true. The essence of the principle of identity is prescriptive; hence, it's essence is organizational and entails the processes of identification and differentiation as applied to the empirical realm of being beyond our minds. Period!
The principle of identity is the only justified true belief/knowledge that is constant. It's fixed, immutable. It's absolute.
Further knowledge about the empirical world beyond human consciousness is not constant, but tentatively held to be justified true belief/knowledge in terms of scientific theory. The latter is subjective to revision and/or falsification in the light of new information.
Beyond that, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ information, understanding or truth about the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. The organic logic of human cognition ≠ causation in classical physics, and ≠ causation in quantum physics. In other words, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature, and the essence of the physical laws of nature is descriptive.
The only one here who incessantly confounds this distinction here is you, and you clearly think to attribute this stupidity to me when you claim that I hold logic to be "a place-card for whatever we CURRENTLY believe is truth."
Hello!
I hold no such thing! The organic logic of human cognition is not the ever-changing understanding/knowledge about the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature.
Dude!
The organic logic of human cognition is fixed, absolute, constant. That's why logic and, therefore, the philosophy of science necessarily proceed and have primacy over science. If logic were in flux, we wouldn't have any fixed constant against which to apprehend (identify/differentiate) the points at which our knowledge breaks down or is incomplete regarding the empirical realm of being. Ultimately, what your really confounding is our sensory perception of causation above the near-atomic/subatomic level with our intellectual apprehension of causation. The common sense of propositional and mathematical logic are superior and reliable, whilst the "common sense" of our sensory perception is not. Quantum physics affirms the organic logic of human cognition. It does not defy it.
Once again, precisely what laws of logic are defied/violated by quantum physics and how? Conversely, precisely what aspects of quantum physics are defied/violated by the laws of logic and how?
Answer that question, and watch what happens.
Clearly, you have been confounding the prescriptive logic of human cognition with the descriptive properties, processes and physical laws of nature in general, and with causation in classical physics above the near-atomic or subatomic level of empirical being especially.
First, stop doing that and you'll stop confusing yourself and stop asking meaningless questions.
Second, stop doing that and you'll stop, ironically, attributing your stupidity to me.
Check?
I'm insane????
Dude... you are reeling off more pages of diatribe than Stephen King on a coke binge, and none of it is about anything I've said. You continue to assume I've said things that I haven't said, and it doesn't seem like you want to listen when I tell you that I haven't argued these points. You just rip off another page of convoluted pontification about shit I haven't talked about and pretending that you are somehow "setting me straight!"
We seem to have a basic communication problem. I don't know how to overcome that and advance a conversation with you. I'm not going to allow you to intellectually cajole me into arguments I haven't made so you can be a literary bully. I'm also not going to change any of the many simple points I've made which you haven't bothered to address.
Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon.
You have that and the theological ramifications thereof right, but why you fail to consistently hold that God would, therefore, necessarily be above and beyond the temporal realm of being is beyond me. God is the universal Principle of Identity. God = God. The prescriptive laws of logic and the descriptive, physical laws of nature are not the same thing! The former is the essence of God; the latter were created by God. The former have primacy over the latter!
You assert the primacy of God and contradictorily undermine the foundation of that primacy. You're trying to assert methodological and metaphysical naturalism at the same time, in effect.
Here’s the real irony: you were trying to attribute an idea to me that I utterly reject as you assert an idea about which you do not grasp the logical ramifications.
No, I consistently place my God above anything in the temporal realm of being. Principles of identity, laws of logic, physics and laws of nature, are relative to human conscience and understanding. They cannot be the foundation of my God's primacy. Not only are these attributes only applicable to humans, they were all created and defined by humans and human thought. Now... IF something that was created by humans and human thought can be the foundation of God, that would necessarily diminish God, rendering God to merely a creation of man. I don't believe Man created God or can grant God primacy through concept of human thought.
I don't have any problem with laws of logic or laws of identity, etc. You continue to preach as if that is what you think the problem is here and it's simply not the problem. All of the stuff you are spending thousands of words to explain in the most grandiose fashion, are simply words, ideas, concepts, thoughts, constructed and compiled by mortal human beings with normal mammal brains. They quite simply mean NOTHING to the cosmos without humans.
The 'thing' that I am trying to convey to you is the nature beyond our ability to comprehend. We have all the concepts and "laws of" this or that, but they remain in the context of what our particular species of mortal carbon-based life can imagine, comprehend, understand, be aware of. As egotistical as we wish to be, humans are incapable of understanding things beyond their ability to comprehend. The very best we can do is understand what we know and realize there is a lot we don't know and will never know because we can't comprehend it.
In the spirit of examining what humans can formulate logical arguments with for support of God, I don't have much problem with your arguments about principles of identity and such, where we are at a disagreement is on whether this is empirical truth or not. You believe it is and I believe it is uncertain. That said, I also think a much more compelling argument for "spiritual dimensions" are apparent in quantum physics and what we are beginning to learn of the subatomic universe. What we see there is a breakdown of logic, time. space, all our typical concepts of the natural physical universe we've come to know and love. It's pretty fucking incredible.
Now people can claim that quantum mechanics are all supported with mathematics and parameters of chemistry, physics and such, and we can apply classical logic to the subatomic world just the same as everywhere. Not true. We're finding more and more that weird things are happening there, and they don't comport with classical logic or anything we can reliably predict.
The century-old double slit experiment is still perplexing scientists. The more closely they try to look, the more baffled they become with what is actually happening there. And the "observer effect" has never been sufficiently explained. It appears that all particles are waves until we observe them. Not only that, but they can change back to particles if we try to trick them by observing later. Literally, it appears they are changing the past. Quantum tunneling, another phenomenon unexplained by classical logic and physics. This is where some particles can pass through solid objects without the energy to do so. What's happening there? We don't know! It's as if the particles 'borrow' energy from the future because they are physically already on the other side of the barrier, they just need to appear there. Weird, weird stuff man!
Particles can be two places at the same time or nowhere, yet still exist. They can be waves or particles depending on if they are observed. They may lack the energy to pass through certain barriers, but some may pass through anyway. When we attempt to confine them to measure their position and speed, they break confinement... mother nature will not allow us to measure her fundamental elements.
And we haven't even talked about "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" which comprise about 96% of our universe.
Can't talk much about it because we simply don't know what the fuck it is!
Ceremonial rituals are not directly analogous to your claimed spirit realms. Once again, you're adding your biases toward gawds and supernaturalism to ceremonial rituals.And humans did NOT always bury their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects. That was one point I was asking you about
Boss I apologize. I got you mixed up with some dopey character in this thread. won't happen again
I'm not sure if humans always buried their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects, that's not what I said. Every human civilization we've unearthed shows indications of ceremonial rituals... human spirituality. There is not an exception, you will not find an example to the contrary.
As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.
My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?
Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.
The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.
Ceremonial rituals are not directly analogous to your claimed spirit realms. Once again, you're adding your biases toward gawds and supernaturalism to ceremonial rituals.And humans did NOT always bury their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects. That was one point I was asking you about
Boss I apologize. I got you mixed up with some dopey character in this thread. won't happen again
I'm not sure if humans always buried their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects, that's not what I said. Every human civilization we've unearthed shows indications of ceremonial rituals... human spirituality. There is not an exception, you will not find an example to the contrary.
Odds? You said it was a mathematical impossibility. I added other life to show probability and possibility scenarios.
I wouldn't say it's a mathematical impossibility, but close. That's for "life as we know" specifically, you realize.... That means the tens of thousands of life forms we have which are solely dependent on the ocean tides, climate conditions, seasons, etc. To have all the conditional parameters for "life as we know" takes a series of things that had to first happen. Sure, there are probably billions of potential candidate planets out there, but when we begin applying the general criteria needed to develop the specific kind of "life as we know" the number begins to dwindle.
Now maybe this is a semantics hang up? Let's replace "life as we know" with just plain "life of some kind" and then we have a much broader range and hope of finding such a thing. However, even IF we modify our quest to simply finding some kind of other life... the closest place that would be a possibility is 600 light years from here. Aside from the possibility of microbial life.
To confound and confuse this issue even more is the distinct possibility that us humans don't know everything and there is some other form of living organism out there based on other chemical and biological systems we may not be aware of. The universe is a big place, there are 100 billion stars in our own galaxy. Nothing is ever impossible.
As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.
My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?
Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.
The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.
I've never understood the contest wherein some of the Fundies need to reject what is otherwise perfectly plausible notion, wherein the Creator, being intelligent... would provide for the adaption of its creation to the ever changing environment.
I know they exist, but as a Baptist for some well over 50 years, who has traveled extensively around the world and throughout the United States, I've not encountered but a few who set themselves for much of a contest.
And with that said, I personally believe that Humanity, at least in part, was set on earth... having evolved since, but not from prior species.
Who or what set us here? I call it 'the Creator'. Someone else may choose to call it something else... and I have no interest in debating who or what that is, as neither parties have any greater insight, via 'knowledge' than the other, so it is just a contest of respective intellect and that's not a contest anyone on the Left is likely to win. So having won that debate in advance, let's just agree that The Creator would, by virtue of his wisdom, have provided for the means of its Creation to evolve and adapt ... .
Conspiracy theories do make everything so simple.Ignorance is preventable. It may require a small degree of personal effort to overcome though. I simply cannot fathom how any rational person could embrace any of the various myths of evolution. All of these myths are total impossibilities. Most people set aside their beliefs in myths by the time they reach puberty.
Instead of wasting one's time on impossible myths and science fiction, one would better be served to watch the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings movies and at least discover what is going on in the inner earth.
A matter of expressing grief, for one.Ceremonial rituals are not directly analogous to your claimed spirit realms. Once again, you're adding your biases toward gawds and supernaturalism to ceremonial rituals.And humans did NOT always bury their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects. That was one point I was asking you about
Boss I apologize. I got you mixed up with some dopey character in this thread. won't happen again
I'm not sure if humans always buried their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects, that's not what I said. Every human civilization we've unearthed shows indications of ceremonial rituals... human spirituality. There is not an exception, you will not find an example to the contrary.
Give me a practical reason for a ceremonial ritual which is not spiritual?
Ceremonial rituals are not directly analogous to your claimed spirit realms. Once again, you're adding your biases toward gawds and supernaturalism to ceremonial rituals.And humans did NOT always bury their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects. That was one point I was asking you about
Boss I apologize. I got you mixed up with some dopey character in this thread. won't happen again
I'm not sure if humans always buried their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects, that's not what I said. Every human civilization we've unearthed shows indications of ceremonial rituals... human spirituality. There is not an exception, you will not find an example to the contrary.
How is the Creator of the Universe "Super-Natural"?
I mean given that such literally is Nature itself... Perhaps you're conflating the sub-natural state of our reality, with that which is otherwise natural and inherently supreme, over us, the sub-natural variant?
A matter of expressing grief, for one.Ceremonial rituals are not directly analogous to your claimed spirit realms. Once again, you're adding your biases toward gawds and supernaturalism to ceremonial rituals.And humans did NOT always bury their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects. That was one point I was asking you about
Boss I apologize. I got you mixed up with some dopey character in this thread. won't happen again
I'm not sure if humans always buried their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects, that's not what I said. Every human civilization we've unearthed shows indications of ceremonial rituals... human spirituality. There is not an exception, you will not find an example to the contrary.
Give me a practical reason for a ceremonial ritual which is not spiritual?
You still have made no case for ceremonial rituals and your alleged spirit realms.
You poor dear. You get incensed when you're required to support your specious claims to magical spirit realms and gawds you have invented.A matter of expressing grief, for one.Ceremonial rituals are not directly analogous to your claimed spirit realms. Once again, you're adding your biases toward gawds and supernaturalism to ceremonial rituals.And humans did NOT always bury their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects. That was one point I was asking you about
Boss I apologize. I got you mixed up with some dopey character in this thread. won't happen again
I'm not sure if humans always buried their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects, that's not what I said. Every human civilization we've unearthed shows indications of ceremonial rituals... human spirituality. There is not an exception, you will not find an example to the contrary.
Give me a practical reason for a ceremonial ritual which is not spiritual?
You still have made no case for ceremonial rituals and your alleged spirit realms.
Expressing grief by ceremonial ritual is spiritual. I asked you for a practical purpose other than spiritual. If you can't find one, it's okay because there isn't one.
Hollie, I know you are an airhead, but even you should recognize that when ancient humans buried their loved ones with ceremonial ritual, it was because they felt that was important. Obviously, it couldn't be important to the dead person anymore, unless it was believed the dead one lived on in an afterlife. There is no practical purpose to themselves to perform these rituals and observe the ceremonies, unless they believed in something greater than self.
So there is really not much of an argument here unless you just insist on being obstinate. Human civilization and spirituality are joined at the hip and always have been.
Expressing grief by ceremonial ritual is spiritual. I asked you for a practical purpose other than spiritual. If you can't find one, it's okay because there isn't one.
Hollie, I know you are an airhead, but even you should recognize that when ancient humans buried their loved ones with ceremonial ritual, it was because they felt that was important. Obviously, it couldn't be important to the dead person anymore, unless it was believed the dead one lived on in an afterlife. There is no practical purpose to themselves to perform these rituals and observe the ceremonies, unless they believed in something greater than self.
So there is really not much of an argument here unless you just insist on being obstinate. Human civilization and spirituality are joined at the hip and always have been.
Expressing grief by ceremonial ritual is spiritual. I asked you for a practical purpose other than spiritual. If you can't find one, it's okay because there isn't one.
Hollie, I know you are an airhead, but even you should recognize that when ancient humans buried their loved ones with ceremonial ritual, it was because they felt that was important. Obviously, it couldn't be important to the dead person anymore, unless it was believed the dead one lived on in an afterlife. There is no practical purpose to themselves to perform these rituals and observe the ceremonies, unless they believed in something greater than self.
So there is really not much of an argument here unless you just insist on being obstinate. Human civilization and spirituality are joined at the hip and always have been.
Why should an atheist take anything Boss says seriously?
Boss, a theist, baldly declares that the very foundation of theism—consciousness and the laws/axioms of thought and mathematics thereof—are created, nonessential, yet God exists!
What?!
Boss insanely argues that local causation in classical physics = the laws/axioms of thought and mathematics; therefore, non-local causation at the near-atomic and subatomic level of being in quantum physics defies/violates the laws/axioms of thought and mathematics.
What?!
Boss eschews the necessity and primacy of consciousness, the foundation of theism. Boss confounds the prescriptive laws/axioms of thought and mathematics with the descriptive, physical laws of nature.
Boss calling Hollie an airhead is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Boss! Everything that comes out of your head necessarily amounts to the following: epistemological relativism and the primacy of matter over mind; hence, irrationalism and materialism.
You poor dear. You get incensed when you're required to support your specious claims to magical spirit realms and gawds you have invented.A matter of expressing grief, for one.Ceremonial rituals are not directly analogous to your claimed spirit realms. Once again, you're adding your biases toward gawds and supernaturalism to ceremonial rituals.I'm not sure if humans always buried their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects, that's not what I said. Every human civilization we've unearthed shows indications of ceremonial rituals... human spirituality. There is not an exception, you will not find an example to the contrary.
Give me a practical reason for a ceremonial ritual which is not spiritual?
You still have made no case for ceremonial rituals and your alleged spirit realms.
Expressing grief by ceremonial ritual is spiritual. I asked you for a practical purpose other than spiritual. If you can't find one, it's okay because there isn't one.
Hollie, I know you are an airhead, but even you should recognize that when ancient humans buried their loved ones with ceremonial ritual, it was because they felt that was important. Obviously, it couldn't be important to the dead person anymore, unless it was believed the dead one lived on in an afterlife. There is no practical purpose to themselves to perform these rituals and observe the ceremonies, unless they believed in something greater than self.
So there is really not much of an argument here unless you just insist on being obstinate. Human civilization and spirituality are joined at the hip and always have been.
As usual, you were unable to support your claims to "spirituality" much less even define what that is.
Bossy, I understand that your world is consumed with magical spirit realms, supernaturalism and things that go bump in the night. However, you shouldn't feel a need to impose your fears and superstitions retroactively on all of humanity.
Expressing grief by ceremonial ritual is spiritual. I asked you for a practical purpose other than spiritual. If you can't find one, it's okay because there isn't one.
Hollie, I know you are an airhead, but even you should recognize that when ancient humans buried their loved ones with ceremonial ritual, it was because they felt that was important. Obviously, it couldn't be important to the dead person anymore, unless it was believed the dead one lived on in an afterlife. There is no practical purpose to themselves to perform these rituals and observe the ceremonies, unless they believed in something greater than self.
So there is really not much of an argument here unless you just insist on being obstinate. Human civilization and spirituality are joined at the hip and always have been.
Why should an atheist take anything Boss says seriously?
Boss, a theist, baldly declares that the very foundation of theism—consciousness and the laws/axioms of thought and mathematics thereof—are created, nonessential, yet God exists!
What?!
Boss insanely argues that local causation in classic physics = the laws/axioms of thought and mathematics; therefore, non-local causation at the near-atomic and subatomic level of being in quantum physics defies/violates the laws/axioms of thought and mathematics.
What?!
Boss eschews the necessity and primacy of consciousness, the foundation of theism. Boss confounds the prescriptive laws/axioms of thought and mathematics with the descriptive, physical laws of nature.
Boss calling Hollie an airhead is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Boss! Everything that comes out of your head necessarily amounts to the following: epistemological relativism and the primacy of matter over mind; hence, irrationalism and materialism.
Disclaimer: Boss has never baldly declared, insanely argued, or eschewed the necessity of anything listed in Rawling's post.
What we have yet again is Rawlings expressing butt hurt because I didn't bow at his feet. But it's okay because I was taught, whenever God hands you lemons, make lemonade. So that's what we're going to do here, make some lemonade.
Despite the fact that no evidence exists for human civilization without spirituality, the god-haters insist that humans became civilized through the realization it was better to cooperate and work together for common goals. Here we see a classic example of how the human mind simply doesn't work that way.
The natural state of the human mind is to be self-serving, to protect one's own interests first, regardless of circumstance. Rather than working together in a cooperative manner with someone who believes in God as he does, Rawlings feels threatened by me, so he is more inclined to attack me instead of joining together to reach a common goal. In fact, here he is so intent on destroying me that he will literally take the side of an Atheist against me.
It is through our spiritual awareness we are able to set aside differences, forgive transgressions, work together for a common good. This enables civilizations to rise.
You poor dear. You get incensed when you're required to support your specious claims to magical spirit realms and gawds you have invented.A matter of expressing grief, for one.Ceremonial rituals are not directly analogous to your claimed spirit realms. Once again, you're adding your biases toward gawds and supernaturalism to ceremonial rituals.
Give me a practical reason for a ceremonial ritual which is not spiritual?
You still have made no case for ceremonial rituals and your alleged spirit realms.
Expressing grief by ceremonial ritual is spiritual. I asked you for a practical purpose other than spiritual. If you can't find one, it's okay because there isn't one.
Hollie, I know you are an airhead, but even you should recognize that when ancient humans buried their loved ones with ceremonial ritual, it was because they felt that was important. Obviously, it couldn't be important to the dead person anymore, unless it was believed the dead one lived on in an afterlife. There is no practical purpose to themselves to perform these rituals and observe the ceremonies, unless they believed in something greater than self.
So there is really not much of an argument here unless you just insist on being obstinate. Human civilization and spirituality are joined at the hip and always have been.
As usual, you were unable to support your claims to "spirituality" much less even define what that is.
Bossy, I understand that your world is consumed with magical spirit realms, supernaturalism and things that go bump in the night. However, you shouldn't feel a need to impose your fears and superstitions retroactively on all of humanity.
Sorry toots, my argument is supported.
The insane atheists are those who knowingly deny basic laws of logic.Atheists are insane.Rawlings, you have a really nasty habit of spewing crap that I never said. Then you strut around like Rick Flair calling me names because you refuted arguments I never made.
You're insane.
The fundamental axioms of (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (comprehensively, the principle of identity) logically hold true. The principle of identity is necessarily justified true belief/knowledge. It holds absolutely and immutably true; it must, therefore, hold true ultimately. There is no argument whatsoever that you can successfully assert to the contrary. Any argument to the contrary will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively prove the opposite is true, i.e., that the principle of identity is true. The essence of the principle of identity is prescriptive; hence, it's essence is organizational and entails the processes of identification and differentiation as applied to the empirical realm of being beyond our minds. Period!
The principle of identity is the only justified true belief/knowledge that is constant. It's fixed, immutable. It's absolute.
Further knowledge about the empirical world beyond human consciousness is not constant, but tentatively held to be justified true belief/knowledge in terms of scientific theory. The latter is subjective to revision and/or falsification in the light of new information.
Beyond that, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ information, understanding or truth about the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. The organic logic of human cognition ≠ causation in classical physics, and ≠ causation in quantum physics. In other words, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature, and the essence of the physical laws of nature is descriptive.
The only one here who incessantly confounds this distinction here is you, and you clearly think to attribute this stupidity to me when you claim that I hold logic to be "a place-card for whatever we CURRENTLY believe is truth."
Hello!
I hold no such thing! The organic logic of human cognition is not the ever-changing understanding/knowledge about the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature.
Dude!
The organic logic of human cognition is fixed, absolute, constant. That's why logic and, therefore, the philosophy of science necessarily proceed and have primacy over science. If logic were in flux, we wouldn't have any fixed constant against which to apprehend (identify/differentiate) the points at which our knowledge breaks down or is incomplete regarding the empirical realm of being. Ultimately, what your really confounding is our sensory perception of causation above the near-atomic/subatomic level with our intellectual apprehension of causation. The common sense of propositional and mathematical logic are superior and reliable, whilst the "common sense" of our sensory perception is not. Quantum physics affirms the organic logic of human cognition. It does not defy it.
Once again, precisely what laws of logic are defied/violated by quantum physics and how? Conversely, precisely what aspects of quantum physics are defied/violated by the laws of logic and how?
Answer that question, and watch what happens.
Clearly, you have been confounding the prescriptive logic of human cognition with the descriptive properties, processes and physical laws of nature in general, and with causation in classical physics above the near-atomic or subatomic level of empirical being especially.
First, stop doing that and you'll stop confusing yourself and stop asking meaningless questions.
Second, stop doing that and you'll stop, ironically, attributing your stupidity to me.
Check?
I'd simply say they're mostly uneducated. Most of the ones posting on these forums are simply college students who never attended church or read the Bible. They get their information from internet web sites and from college professors who have never actually done anything or been actually employed in any scientific field. These college atheists are in the same boat. They've never really done anything or been employed in a scientific field either. They get everything out of a book, from their college professors, or from an internet website. Most of them are lucky to tie their own shoes.
