Theism is unscientific, illogical, and irrational

that seems fair to say

Fair meaning that its fair to say anything is possible?  

it does appear that proto-religious beliefs were effective social scaffolding that aided human survival

and i think it could be argued "possibly essential"

this is fun to watch

This sounds familiar 

From:https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2019/08/19/where-did-religion-first-come-from

The idea is that ancient religiosity arose when our archaic ancestors, perhaps in the middle Paleolithic period, realized that they could induce ecstatic experiences. They started dancing, drumming, imbibing, chanting, feasting and fasting.
This capability was a step on from simply experiencing awe and wonder, which primates and other animals probably do too, because it meant that altered states of consciousness could be explored. A full range of animistic rituals and shamanistic skills developed. These peoples must have been drawn by the intrinsic worth that the trance states revealed. The world became multidimensional and porous to spirits, ancestors and transcendence. But there was something else.
Achieving ecstasy has an adaptive byproduct. Synchronized activity in groups leads to releases of endorphins. These opioid hormones ease tension, like aspirin eases pain, and so they amplify prosocial behavior by dissolving squabbles. They are chemicals that groom. In short, the birth of religiosity allowed human groups to grow.

Of course it is unscientific. This isn't controversial. Just looking for a fight where there is none picking a fight.

Agreed! 

Key claims of what?

I'm discussing theism and you seem to be focussing on something specific, which I am guessing is Christian bible tales.

And my views regarding the Christian bible are well documented.

"Theism is unscientific, illogical, and irrational" is obviously relative but a completely different issue.

I would suggest that any emergent intellectual species anywhere in the Universe, will at some point in its development, logically and rationally hypothesise a relevant GOD.

Along with a crude, but inevitable accompanying theistic explanation.

Illogic and irrationality is easy to propose with hindsight, but a completely futile exercise.

Middle eastern GOD ideas emerged several thousand years ago and have been a driving force of Global social development ever since.

There's no getting away from the fact.

Doesn't necessarily mean the elements of theism are false though. Let's keep that in mind .

Agreed

I want to clarify my exact issue with your points. I agreed with everything you’re saying except the conclusion “theism is rational and logical to accept TODAY or theism is reasonable STILL” 

I already agreed with your “premises” that theism/religion or spirituality whatever you want to call it was probably a big part of our social development. So now again, I will ask you to show the logical connection between something was rational or beneficial for the early humans so therefore it is still beneficial and rational for us to believe now? If you are only talking about “before” then I can agree. And its only because it’s not really in my interest to discuss if theism was rational sometime ago. Even if was rational for a man to think lighting strikes are “zeus being pissed off” thats not really something thats relevant now.  

False. To believe this kind of statement further the illogical, lack of common sense and lack o critical thinking of  these self-claimed God fearing peoples.

Ex there can only exist five regular/symmetrical and convex poyhedra of Universe, and any scenarios that invoke multiple local universes, or parrallle universe or bubble unierses etc.

They have little interest truth and much more interest in a screwy belief system.  A placeobo effect to get them through the day, as the constantly side-steps logical, common sense critical thinking truths.

My end date prognostication for humans was 2015 and were 9 years beyond that. Issac Newton had various end dates with one being around 2065.

Admiral Rickover { 1954 Nautilis atomic submarine } said nuclear power would lead to the end of humanity.

I was just trying to find out what motivated him to say thats fair. Fair because “ehh everything is possible bc we dont know a lot” or fair because there’s actually some reason and he thinks evolution “picked” us to be spiritual. I guess we can say spirituality benefited our social development but idk if we can say “evolution pick us on purpose or picked spirituality on purpose”.  I do not think thats fair and I do not agree anything is possible. 

exactly my point

present a theistic claim that is scientific

present a theistic claim that is logical

present a theistic claim that is rational

because we tend to project our own emotional states on inanimate objects

and that projection may have some retroactive demonstrable social benefit

but projecting motives onto inanimate objects is not scientific

projecting motives onto inanimate objects is not logical

projecting motives onto inanimate objects is not rational

It seems like the connection between theism and theists is very crucial to the debate for them but somehow the connection between theism and what does theism claim is not that important and unnecessary to discuss.

i'd like to give them a hint

all of the sound logical-necessity arguments for an all-powerful creator

are arguments for DEISM

which is a little weird

because THEISTS tend to think this somehow bolsters their mythos

but nobody can draw a straight line between the two

because back here in reality

DEISM is functionally indistinguishable from ATHEISM

This is literally what this is about. In my messages with Sidewalker before the thread I specified that this should be just an honest conversation and not a formal debate focusing on technicalities, who has BoP, whos PRO whos CON, whos winner, whos loser etc, and he agreed. This is the reason why I defined “God” as all powerful, all intelligent and all that other stuff. Now I am sure everyone participating in this thread is smart enough to know the full definition of theism and the difference between theism and deism. The key difference or the key claims that people refuse to admit is that theistic gods are not just all powerful and all knowing and spiritual and transcendent.Being beneficial to something maybe long time ago is also not what makes theism - theism. I have no problem agreeing to all of those definitions about either one. But what makes the theistic god theistic and not deistic is that he interacts with us. He has a personal relationship with people. The theistic God Sidewalker believes in has been claimed to have stepped down on Earth. So I was trying all “debate” to “skip past” the parts where my “opponent” kept irrelatively talking about spirituality and scientists hundreds years ago but sadly he never wanted to get to the topic of theism and a personal interacting with us god. The only reason for that that he presented is that “i have not giving him arguments that theism is unreasonable and unscientific” and “the BoP is on me bc I this and I that and AhhHAAa this is a game of who wins and who loses and im not talking about what I believe bc I dont wanna lose a “debate””. Sidewalker clearly did not understand that all I need as an argument  to start  this discussion is that I have not been presented with anything that makes the belief in a personal god reasonable and I am not aware of any scientific methods that allow us to observe any theistic claims. I acknowledged that I could be wrong and the only thing he needs to do if he actually believes I am wrong is to debunk my argument which specifically says “there is no scientific method which makes it unscientific”. We all know what makes something scientific, we all know what scientific method is I assume, so all you need to do is show me a scientific method that allows us to observe your personal relationship (or anyones) with a divine being. If you just have some other definition of scientific thats okay. Nobody is going to take your god away if you cant do that. I personally believe that even if god exists theres no way the belief in him can be scientific because that is idiotic. In a universe where god has created science and the laws of physics and he has decided not to make his appearance known to everybody nothing can prove him. No science, no philosophy, no nothing. If he wants everything to work just and only by faith and I was a believer I would have some balls to say “yeah this is not based by science because you cannot test god, and this is not about reason because it should not be about thinking, it should be about faith and personal relationship, not logic. God wants people who believe in him because they want to be with him not because it is reasonable to believe in him. He is not trying to get just smart people in heaven and leave all the dummies in hell”

bingo

God could make a Human out of dust, but he couldn't make an iPhone?

in other words

if you don't know or don't agree with the rules of boxing

just stay out of the ring

Process dictates that theism persists.

We cannot alter the fact just by saying that theism is now baloney.

Nor therefore, can we solve the ongoing issue of everything and it's purpose.

Of course there might not be a purpose, and everything might be unscientific, illogical and irrational.

And therefore was naively scientific, in so much as it observed phenomena and proposed a logical and rational hypothesis.

There's still no evidence that can unequivocally discredit the idea of Sky-Daddies.

So relative theism is still valid.

Alternative ideas are alternative ideas and are subject to the same uncertainty, despite the best efforts of science.

Which isn't to say that I do not personally think that archaic religious practices are foolish and unnecessary.

Tru-dat!

OMG, you found a reason for TSD !

(IFF) omniscient omnipotent creator = exist (THEN) everything that exists is necessarily part of omniscient omnipotent creator

ipso facto

every event is the manifest will of omniscient omnipotent creator

I wasn't suggesting that Sky-Daddies were necessarily omniscient omnipotent creators.

Just a significantly more evolved bunch of everyday universal folk.

and that might be a decent argument if anyone in the modern world seriously believed in zeus

but the overwhelming majority are trying to make a case for OOC