my friend told me to tell you "thank you" for him

I need source...
Asking for a friend.

is this OC?

I'm somewhat surprised that the moment I actually start addressing what you say you stop responding...

"You started with "Judeo-Christian value system is inherently misogynistic", [...] to "didn't read lel". Yeah, it is I who "jumps themes"."

Bringing up different topics on different points is not the same as switching out the concrete question on the general matter of "intelligent design".

"But you sure have explained how your belief is "we can imagine no G-d, therefore no G-d"."

Actually, that isn't such a bad representation of what I'm saying. If you can explain a process without invoking the super-natural it is the far more plausible and far more parsimonious explanation. Invoking the supernatural explains exactly nothing, you're just pushing the issue away. Where did god come from? Does had to be created by an intelligent creator as well?

"You have no claim to logic or semantics until you first own up to your incompetencies in reason and language, then educate yourself, then reevaluate your position."

Well it's not a claim to logic or semantics on my side, it's just a matter of how things are defined. As I hinted to, I do have a reasonable grasp of advanced statistics and math, not saying I'm particularly good, but good enough to make a decent living out of it.

"What part of "the heat-death of the universe would have come sooner than those chances would get to actualize""

Again, the point is precisely that things do not happen by random chance, I'm not the kind of guy to cry over "fallacies" in argumentation, but you have to be aware that you are strawmanning when you argue against "random chance".
However even IF the argument was about random chance, your reasoning here is completely wrong. Do you have to play the lottery millions of times to win it? No, regardless of what the odds are, it's always a possibility that you get lucky at your first try.

"Your reading and reasoning skills have peaked! I always knew you could do it!
Except that you flunked the context, committed a logical fallacy"

Well ok, tell me where my analogy does not hold up and please do tell me which part of the Bible you interpret to mean "slavery is wrong" while still being consistent the parts that discuss the existence of slaves so casually.
If you feel you have to repeat yourself you may copy parts from earlier posts.

"Is that so?
I don't buy it. It is just your way of cowering out of owning up to your own stupidity"

Kinda ironic that you of all people don't believe something just like that. What, do you mean to say you'd require evidence before you believe something?

"I could replace you with any literal chunk of feces and and the conversation would be the same. Not only are you and it just as pleasant, intelligent, and productive, but the two of you also share a "lack of belief in G-d"."

You know I tried to remember if there was something in the Bible that would basically say something like "don't equate people literal chunks of feces", so I could smugly point you to it and say something like "guess you'll have to be tortured for eternity", but I actually can't remember anything in the Bible that would help me out here (maybe the "golden rule", but that would assume you wouldn't be ok with being equated to chunks of feces).

"at which point you proceeded to argue that the process has been discovered and recreated. When I called you out on it, you said "While discussing "god of the gaps", makes a god-of-the-gaps argument.""

The problem here is, that you keep jumping from topic to topic based on what you want to say. In the case of issues like "how could there be hemoglobin" we do know the process and it's quite amusing that you would bring up the blind watchmaker, because the whole point of that book is to point out that nobody is claiming that life as we know it today happened by "random chance". And in the book he discusses how you can fairly easily simulate an evolution-like process to show that outcomes that would not be reached by brute-force occur within relatively few iterations. Actually I myself worked with genetic algorithms on optimization problems and that shit is really taken straight from what we know about genetic adaptations. Did you actually read the blind watchmaker?
And in other cases like "where did the universe come from" it is true that we do not know the answers yet, and that is the point where people like you jump to the god-of-the-gaps.
When I asked you to formulate the problem I was referring to the latter, but even if I had been referring to the biological issue, you answer was not an answer to my question. Statistical likelihoods and "mathematical impossible" are not equivalent. But even within statistics your answer didn't make any sense because there is no such thing as "statistically impossible", even an event with likelihood = 0 is not called "impossible". An event can be within the set of possible events but whatever method you use has assigned that event a likelihood of 0.
Funny enough even in your interpretation of the question and assuming there was such a thing as "statistical impossibility", your answer still didn't make sense since you took an event with a none zero probability, which means that IF the argument was that it would all happen by random chance, you'd done nothing to argue against it because no matter how low the probability, you could hit it with your first try.

"that all religions are alike, that you are an edgelord who retreats to ridicule"

Well, you got my intentions somewhat correctly. I do enjoy how it always does itch religious people when you start acting as if you forgot which of the religions they are defending. And believe me, one could actually forget it at times because especially when talking about issues like "intelligent" design I could replace you with any Muslim and the conversation would be the same.

"But if you think that not being able to go for a swim in February is a sign that the universe is not fine-tuned"

Ok, maybe we have a different understanding of "fine tuned". If you just look at our solar-system, earth is the only place we can exist and even on earth we can't exist in most of the places most of the time. Which means even in our solar-system there is only a tiny, tiny fraction of space where we can live. If that is fine-tuned for life to you, that's ok. I suppose how one interprets the word "fine tuned" in this context really is dependent on ones prior world-view.

"Except that you committed the fallacy of composition, you failed to explain how that verse proves that Judeo-Christian doctrine is pro-slavery"

ehm... why would god need to give instructions on how to handle slaves if he could just have said "don't have slaves". I mean why is that nowhere to be found in the Bible? If someone writes a book where he gives instructions on how to seduce women and he says at no place ever "don't seduce women", wouldn't you say it's pretty clear that that person thinks seducing women is ok? (not saying it isn't I just wanted an analogy)

"I've already sent you a link concerning the myth that "G-d tortures people in hell for not believing in him", and apparently you've ignored it;"

To be honest: yes I didn't actually read most of what you wrote, I usually just glanced over it and then jumped on something I thought would be amusing. But I did actually read your last comment completely because I'm currently sick at home until Friday ^^.
So if you have anything to say you really really want me to read/watch, now is your chance ^^.

"We have not found a process (let alone recreate it) where nothing explodes into a universe fine-tuned to support (and create) intelligent life"

While discussing "god of the gaps", makes a god-of-the-gaps argument. You're the most entertaining thing I found on the net for ages.
Also: fine tuned for intelligent life? Unless you know about some spacefaring aliens I'd say Allah did a really shitty job at fine-tuning the universe for us. At this time of the year I can't even go for a swim for more than a few minutes without dying.

"Moreover, when your "process" is a mathematical impossibility, it is necessary to assume agency."

Oh, oh, ohhhh... pleaaase just sketch out the mathematical proof for me, I know a few things about math, I'm interested in how you even formulated the problem.
And while you're at it, can you also "mathematically" show why Allah is exempt from the issue?

"you have the audacity to insist that I answer if I am pro-slavery?"

ehm... yes. I mean you also believe I should be tortured in hell for eternity for not believing in Allah, with that kind of morals I don't see how it would be beyond you to believe in slavery (well ok your slaves get the day of on Shabbat as well (Exodus 20:10)...it's something)

"YES I ARE PRO-SLAVERY AND I R COME TO DESTROY ALL WHO R NOT BLOND RICH WHITE PEOPLE AND I VALIDATE THIS WITH MY BOOK WHICH TEACHES ME TO HATE MY NEIGHBOR AND STEAL PEOPLE AND BE EVIL YAR!!!!!!!"

just saying: for someone who writes that much you sure refused to stay in character for this question...
In the case of misogyny you said something along the lines of "if you go into reading the bible trying to find interpretations that aren't heinous you can find them" (yes that is basically what you said). I'm sure you can come up with something similarly amusing in the case of slavery and it's explicit support of it in the bible?

"our camp usually does something along the lines of "since Hamlet was written with ink and paper, there was no need for Shakespeare"

Is that really how you see the world? Because the appropriate analogy would be something like this:
We can explain and reproduce in a lab the process where Hamlet writes itself with no interference from outside and than people like you say "yeah, but who designed the process that is able to write Hamlet by itself?".

"There are sections that one could misinterpret and label misogynistic..."

Do you realize that it is not hard to be unambiguous when it comes to questions like these? Why would the holy book of the one true religion be written so badly that the most obvious interpretation is misogynistic and all ways you could try to interpret it that would not be misogynistic are far-fetched? And it's not like this only happens once in your "holy book".

But now I actually feel like asking you:
a: How do you reinterpret a something like 1 Timothy 2:12 to not be misogynistic (yes I'm going for the lowest haning fruite here)
b: Are you pro-slavery? And if not, do you also claim that the Bible would not support slavery?

"I don't see how that is true."

The most obvious point to be made is, that the whole god-hypothesis is designed such that it can't be disproven. The other very obvious point is, that someone who want's to not outright deny reality but also want's to believe in god has to do a lot of mental gymnastics to explain away inconsistencies (e.g. things the bible claims about reality are now known to be false which leads to many Christians basically going for some version of the "god of the gaps"), has to explain away implausibilities (e.g. a "loving" god throwing people into eternal torture, or simply the whole concept of an "omnipotent" being -> can god make a stone which is too heavy for him to lift?) and has to somehow explain why you can basically make all the same arguments he uses to defend Islam.
If there were any other hypothesis presented to you that was that hard to justify, you would reject it.

"Like William Lane Craig vs Sam Harris ..."
In a public debate the measure for who won is basically "who convinced more people", but you can't really win such a discussion.
Since we don't have an audience here...