Popcorn thread for TGBaker's one on one

Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Popcorn thread for TGBaker's one on one

 Out of respect for TGBaker's  wishes myself and others should stay out of that thread.  Any comments on it could be made here.  

I hope that Mr M doesn't disappoint by thumping a bible anywhere in the discussion.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: Out of respect

Ktulu wrote:

 Out of respect for TGBaker's  wishes myself and others should stay out of that thread.  Any comments on it could be made here.  

I hope that Mr M doesn't disappoint by thumping a bible anywhere in the discussion.

You don't have to worry.  That isn't my style.  The only time I'll bring up the Bible is if we start discussing what Christianity actually says, in which case the Bible is appropriate.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
He's been nothing but chest

He's been nothing but chest puffing about being grounded in 'sophisticated' and *cough* mature analysis, so he better bring his 'A' game into the dialogue with TG.

He's been doing nothing but marketing the 'brochure', and touting the 'power' of his reasoning.

It's time the rubber meets the road, with Mr_M...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: Out of respect

Ktulu wrote:

 Out of respect for TGBaker's  wishes myself and others should stay out of that thread.  Any comments on it could be made here.  

I hope that Mr M doesn't disappoint by thumping a bible anywhere in the discussion.

Can I do some bible thumping???

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Ktulu

TGBaker wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

 Out of respect for TGBaker's  wishes myself and others should stay out of that thread.  Any comments on it could be made here.  

I hope that Mr M doesn't disappoint by thumping a bible anywhere in the discussion.

Can I do some bible thumping???

 

You, my friend, can do as you damn well please.  Smiling Just so long as it is consensual between yourself and the bible.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:TGBaker

Ktulu wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

 Out of respect for TGBaker's  wishes myself and others should stay out of that thread.  Any comments on it could be made here.  

I hope that Mr M doesn't disappoint by thumping a bible anywhere in the discussion.

Can I do some bible thumping???

 

You, my friend, can do as you damn well please.  Smiling Just so long as it is consensual between yourself and the bible.

I thank you and my bible thanks you.  My doctor on the other hand has not allowed conjugal visits between my wife and I.  He has not spoken biblically however,

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Well the discussion did not

Well the discussion did not get too far. Mr. Metaphysics has too many irons on his fire. 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Well the

TGBaker wrote:

Well the discussion did not get too far. Mr. Metaphysics has too many irons on his fire. 

Yup, you know he's running out of steam when he pulls out the 'ole faitful fine tuning argument Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:TGBaker

Ktulu wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Well the discussion did not get too far. Mr. Metaphysics has too many irons on his fire. 

Yup, you know he's running out of steam when he pulls out the 'ole faitful fine tuning argument Smiling

Well, he pretty much started with it up front didn't he?  Given the fact my eye sight sucks right now and it is difficult to type ( not that I apply too much attention to it) May I ask you objectively if my responses made sense to you. I think that discussion as opposed to debate sometimes resolves to a faster conclusion. It may be that the time it would take to resolve the question was a lot longer than Mr. Metaphyics invisioned. Or it may be that at best fine tuning points  to is a  type of panpsychism or a universal mind to get New Agey. I was polite I thought. But perhaps I implied in my statements that philosophy can not build a mouse much less a god. He stopped around the theodicy  is my guess.issue

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Ktulu

TGBaker wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Well the discussion did not get too far. Mr. Metaphysics has too many irons on his fire. 

Yup, you know he's running out of steam when he pulls out the 'ole faitful fine tuning argument Smiling

Well, he pretty much started with it up front didn't he?  Given the fact my eye sight sucks right now and it is difficult to type ( not that I apply too much attention to it) May I ask you objectively if my responses made sense to you. I think that discussion as opposed to debate sometimes resolves to a faster conclusion. It may be that the time it would take to resolve the question was a lot longer than Mr. Metaphyics invisioned. Or it may be that at best fine tuning points  to is a  type of panpsychism or a universal mind to get New Agey. I was polite I thought. But perhaps I implied in my statements that philosophy can not build a mouse much less a god. He stopped around the theodicy  is my guess.issue

 

I thought your responses were very lucid given your current situation.  Though I confess to just skimming along.

I think he realized he was out gunned and quit before he got annihilated.  Sorry for the mixed metaphor.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:TGBaker wrote:Ktulu

cj wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Well the discussion did not get too far. Mr. Metaphysics has too many irons on his fire. 

Yup, you know he's running out of steam when he pulls out the 'ole faitful fine tuning argument Smiling

Well, he pretty much started with it up front didn't he?  Given the fact my eye sight sucks right now and it is difficult to type ( not that I apply too much attention to it) May I ask you objectively if my responses made sense to you. I think that discussion as opposed to debate sometimes resolves to a faster conclusion. It may be that the time it would take to resolve the question was a lot longer than Mr. Metaphyics invisioned. Or it may be that at best fine tuning points  to is a  type of panpsychism or a universal mind to get New Agey. I was polite I thought. But perhaps I implied in my statements that philosophy can not build a mouse much less a god. He stopped around the theodicy issue is my guess.

 

I thought your responses were very lucid given your current situation.  Though I confess to just skimming along.

I think he realized he was out gunned and quit before he got annihilated.  Sorry for the mixed metaphor.

 

Or his wife has been complaining about his time on the internet,

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Yup, you know

TGBaker wrote:
 Well, he pretty much started with it up front didn't he?  Given the fact my eye sight sucks right now and it is difficult to type ( not that I apply too much attention to it) May I ask you objectively if my responses made sense to you. I think that discussion as opposed to debate sometimes resolves to a faster conclusion. It may be that the time it would take to resolve the question was a lot longer than Mr. Metaphyics invisioned. Or it may be that at best fine tuning points  to is a  type of panpsychism or a universal mind to get New Agey. I was polite I thought. But perhaps I implied in my statements that philosophy can not build a mouse much less a god. He stopped around the theodicy  is my guess.issue

It does not surprise me that other atheists think I quit because I was outmatched.  I'm sure if you tell yourself something enough times, you begin to believe it.  The truth is that right now, I'm having some issues at work that require my full attention, and discussions such as the one that I was having take a lot of my time.  I was taking a week to respond, and I thought it would be polite of me to just pull out of the discussion since TGBaker obviously wanted someone who could commit to this more fully.  I never thought the question was easy to resolve, and I knew going into it that the discussion would require a lot of thought and attention, and TGBaker actually is more intelligent than most atheists here. 

The sad fact is that 99% of atheists are idiots.  I'm not trying to be mean, but that is just a fact.  Most atheists are not sophisticated, and their points are easily dismantled.  If you present an argument to them, they simply resort to usual one-liners such as "why does this prove God and not the FSM" or "how do you know????" because they just cannot grasp the arguments.  Many times, the responses are just downright incoherent and trade upon misunderstandings of the actual arguments being presented.

Truth be told, I think I am done with atheist discussion boards.  If most atheists were like James Sennett or TGBaker, it would probably be more entertaining, but unfortunately most atheists are not like that.  It's simply not worth my time. 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: The

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

The sad fact is that 99% of atheists are idiots.  I'm not trying to be mean, but that is just a fact.  Most atheists are not sophisticated, and their points are easily dismantled.  If you present an argument to them, they simply resort to usual one-liners such as "why does this prove God and not the FSM" or "how do you know????" because they just cannot grasp the arguments.  Many times, the responses are just downright incoherent and trade upon misunderstandings of the actual arguments being presented.

Truth be told, I think I am done with atheist discussion boards.  If most atheists were like James Sennett or TGBaker, it would probably be more entertaining, but unfortunately most atheists are not like that.  It's simply not worth my time. 

 

I am not a philosopher, I do not even pretend to be interested in philosophical discussions.  That does not mean I am an idiot or that you are more intelligent than I am.  We just have different views of the world and - from what I have read recently from neurological studies - different physical brain structures.  Again, it is not a matter of intelligence.

I have followed along on your arguments and you just haven't come up with anything that resolves my issues with no empirical data available.  You can argue metaphysics until you are blue in the face, and that doesn't change the fact that there are no empirical measurements of god/s/dess.  And for me, there is where the argument stops.  Call me a realistic pragmatist or a pragmatic realist, but your arguments are just a lot of hot air to me.

Again, that doesn't make me an idiot, it means you are unable to make an argument that appeals to a realist.  And there are a fair number of realists in the world, which means you are not going to be able to convince a single one of them.

You just seem to repeat the same arguments over and over without making allowances for the audience you are speaking to - so who is the idiot?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:TGBaker

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
 Well, he pretty much started with it up front didn't he?  Given the fact my eye sight sucks right now and it is difficult to type ( not that I apply too much attention to it) May I ask you objectively if my responses made sense to you. I think that discussion as opposed to debate sometimes resolves to a faster conclusion. It may be that the time it would take to resolve the question was a lot longer than Mr. Metaphyics invisioned. Or it may be that at best fine tuning points  to is a  type of panpsychism or a universal mind to get New Agey. I was polite I thought. But perhaps I implied in my statements that philosophy can not build a mouse much less a god. He stopped around the theodicy  is my guess.issue

It does not surprise me that other atheists think I quit because I was outmatched.  I'm sure if you tell yourself something enough times, you begin to believe it.  The truth is that right now, I'm having some issues at work that require my full attention, and discussions such as the one that I was having take a lot of my time.  I was taking a week to respond, and I thought it would be polite of me to just pull out of the discussion since TGBaker obviously wanted someone who could commit to this more fully.  I never thought the question was easy to resolve, and I knew going into it that the discussion would require a lot of thought and attention, and TGBaker actually is more intelligent than most atheists here. 

The sad fact is that 99% of atheists are idiots.  I'm not trying to be mean, but that is just a fact.  Most atheists are not sophisticated, and their points are easily dismantled.  If you present an argument to them, they simply resort to usual one-liners such as "why does this prove God and not the FSM" or "how do you know????" because they just cannot grasp the arguments.  Many times, the responses are just downright incoherent and trade upon misunderstandings of the actual arguments being presented.

Truth be told, I think I am done with atheist discussion boards.  If most atheists were like James Sennett or TGBaker, it would probably be more entertaining, but unfortunately most atheists are not like that.  It's simply not worth my time. 

 

Hi  Meta,  James Sennett is a Theist perhaps reluctantly.  But a believer none the less. I think he is even writing or has finished a defense of faith without belief. I understand about the work pressures which is an area of focus that comes first.  I have a difficult time with timing too. I think that part of me wants to resolve some issues in case I don't make it through the chemo. I would never think of atheists as idiots. I think a large part are smarter than on average (according to statistics). i do not think theists are idiots. I do think that we are all driven by what we believe to be the case. The way to get to the case I think is emperically, scientifically and rationally. Good luck Meta.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: The

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
The sad fact is that 99% of atheists are idiots.  I'm not trying to be mean, but that is just a fact.

What Ray Comfort book did you pull those statistics out of?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Most atheists are not sophisticated, and their points are easily dismantled. 

I reckon that's true if you live in NASCAR country, where you only know 1 thing; "Turn Left", and to keep going in circles...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
If you present an argument to them, they simply resort to usual one-liners such as "why does this prove God and not the FSM" or "how do you know????" because they just cannot grasp the arguments.

Your arguments are circular. We demonstrated that, and you simply refuse to understand, or acknowledge that.

Your arguments are embarrassingly easy to shut down with 2 simple questions:

1- According to who?

2- According to what?

Your ad nauseum "According to logic", is the most intellectually bankrupt attempt at posturing, and euphemism for 'agreeing with yourself'.

Labelling your unprecedented speculations as anything but theories, demonstrates your willingness to engage in arbitrary suspension of skepticism and disbelief, and stratifications of speculations, for your emotional indulgence.

 

You really need to grow up and realize that only hindsight is 20/20.

Logic is based on hindsight.

Every single one of these ancient philosophers based their ideas and theories on drawing parallels based on hindsight, and arguments from incredulity and ignorance.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Many times, the responses are just downright incoherent and trade upon misunderstandings of the actual arguments being presented.

Anything you say, Ricky Bobby...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
  Truth be told, I think I am done with atheist discussion boards.

That's ok, Slick, your shilling here for the Matt Slick radio show was becoming quite transparent.

But feel free to

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
  It's simply not worth my time. 

Translation: " I couldn't win..."

You brought along the most rehearsed apologist arguments, and this board got flooded with responses that show (in great detail) all the flaws in apologist arguments, which only strengthens the educational power of this forum.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote: I reckon

redneF wrote:

 

I reckon that's true if you live in NASCAR country, where you only know 1 thing; "Turn Left", and to keep going in circles...

 

Hey I represent that remark ><, you forgot the beer and toothless women though.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:redneF

robj101 wrote:

redneF wrote:

 

I reckon that's true if you live in NASCAR country, where you only know 1 thing; "Turn Left", and to keep going in circles...

 

Hey I represent that remark ><

Then you know it's not Jeebus that makes 3500 lb bricks on wheels go 200+ mph on the backstretch at Texas Motor Speedway. It's science.

robj101 wrote:
you forgot the beer

Bud Lite is not beer. It's the residue from rinsing the tanks.

Duvel is beer.

robj101 wrote:
and toothless women though.

Do they posture like Mr_Meta, and Ray Ray the Banana Man, that atheists ain't as lickety split in the brains as they are, too?

 

Hillbilly Redneck:  "Gawd's what done it all. Who else coulda done it all???"

Skeptic: "Done what?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "All of it?"

Skeptic: "All of what?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Creetid all the stuff"

Skeptic: "All what stuff?

Hillbilly Redneck: "The stuff in the universe, you idjit"

Skeptic: "How do you know that all the particles and forces that exist weren't always there?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Cause that's not lawgeekal!"

Skeptic: "How so?

Hillbilly Redneck: "Cause it was creetid"

Skeptic: "How do you know that?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Cause Gawd's the creetor of all the stuff"

Skeptic: "How do you know that?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Cause it could not have been creetid from nuttin!"

Skeptic: "How do you know that?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Cause that's not lawgeekal!"

Skeptic: "Who created god?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Nuttin created Gawd! He's not made of stuff that was creetid!"

Skeptic: "So something, called God, always existed, that never required a creator?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Yep"

Skeptic: "But why couldn't all the particles and forces always have existed and not required a 'creator'?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Cause that's not lawgeekal!"

Skeptic: "But you just said that something could have always existed, without having been 'created' by a 'creator' "

Hillbilly Redneck: "Yep"

Skeptic: "I'm asking why could 'all the stuff' not always have existed?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Cause it had to be creetid! "

Skeptic: "How do you know that it had to be 'created'?? "

Hillbilly Redneck: "Cause that's the only way! " "It couldn't be come from nuttin'!!"

Skeptic: "What's God made from?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Nuttin"

Skeptic: "And all the 'stuff' came from him?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Yep"

Skeptic: "But you said all the 'stuff' couldn't come from 'nuttin'"

Hillbilly Redneck: "I didn't. I said Gawd done it"

Skeptic: "That doesn't make any sense..."

Hillbilly Redneck: "It didn't none to me either! I used to be just like y'all. "

Skeptic: "When did it become clear to you?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "After my big wreck at Talladega"

Skeptic: "What happened?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Crashed into a concrete wall at 200 mph"

Skeptic: "And then it made sense?"

Hillbilly Redneck: " Yep"

Skeptic: "How so??"

Hillbilly Redneck: "If Gawd hadn't a creetid all the stuff to make concrete, I wouldna hit a concrete wall. I jess woulda kep on goin, Duh!!"

"Ya see??.....Lawjeek!!"

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:robj101

redneF wrote:

robj101 wrote:

redneF wrote:

 

I reckon that's true if you live in NASCAR country, where you only know 1 thing; "Turn Left", and to keep going in circles...

 

Hey I represent that remark ><

Then you know it's not Jeebus that makes 3500 lb bricks on wheels go 200+ mph on the backstretch at Texas Motor Speedway. It's science.

robj101 wrote:
you forgot the beer

Bud Lite is not beer. It's the residue from rinsing the tanks.

Duvel is beer.

robj101 wrote:
and toothless women though.

Do they posture like Mr_Meta, and Ray Ray the Banana Man, that atheists ain't as lickety split in the brains as they are, too?

 

Hillbilly Redneck:  "Gawd's what done it all. Who else coulda done it all???"

Skeptic: "Done what?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "All of it?"

Skeptic: "All of what?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Creetid all the stuff"

Skeptic: "All what stuff?

Hillbilly Redneck: "The stuff in the universe, you idjit"

Skeptic: "How do you know that all the particles and forces that exist weren't always there?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Cause that's not lawgeekal!"

Skeptic: "How so?

Hillbilly Redneck: "Cause it was creetid"

Skeptic: "How do you know that?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Cause Gawd's the creetor of all the stuff"

Skeptic: "How do you know that?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Cause it could not have been creetid from nuttin!"

Skeptic: "How do you know that?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Cause that's not lawgeekal!"

Skeptic: "Who created god?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Nuttin created Gawd! He's not made of stuff that was creetid!"

Skeptic: "So something, called God, always existed, that never required a creator?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Yep"

Skeptic: "But why couldn't all the particles and forces always have existed and not required a 'creator'?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Cause that's not lawgeekal!"

Skeptic: "But you just said that something could have always existed, without having been 'created' by a 'creator' "

Hillbilly Redneck: "Yep"

Skeptic: "I'm asking why could 'all the stuff' not always have existed?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Cause it had to be creetid! "

Skeptic: "How do you know that it had to be 'created'?? "

Hillbilly Redneck: "Cause that's the only way! " "It couldn't be come from nuttin'!!"

Skeptic: "What's God made from?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Nuttin"

Skeptic: "And all the 'stuff' came from him?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Yep"

Skeptic: "But you said all the 'stuff' couldn't come from 'nuttin'"

Hillbilly Redneck: "I didn't. I said Gawd done it"

Skeptic: "That doesn't make any sense..."

Hillbilly Redneck: "It didn't none to me either! I used to be just like y'all. "

Skeptic: "When did it become clear to you?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "After my big wreck at Talladega"

Skeptic: "What happened?"

Hillbilly Redneck: "Crashed into a concrete wall at 200 mph"

Skeptic: "And then it made sense?"

Hillbilly Redneck: " Yep"

Skeptic: "How so??"

Hillbilly Redneck: "If Gawd hadn't a creetid all the stuff to make concrete, I wouldna hit a concrete wall. I jess woulda kep on goin, Duh!!"

"Ya see??.....Lawjeek!!"

 

 

 

I think that theists that come to this board simply want to prove their faith. Some are interested in saving us from Satan.  Jean just enjoys rubbing our noses in his sincere belief that we were made by god for hell. As far the redneck thing ...hey I from Tennessee originally

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: I think that

TGBaker wrote:
I think that theists that come to this board simply want to prove their faith.

I completely disagree.

They're groomed to defend their faith, and be militant towards those who have not assimilated.

That is clearly written in scriptures.

TGBaker wrote:
Some are interested in saving us from Satan. 

Nope.

Not buying it.

They know the scam.

It doesn't matter so much what you do during your life, as long as you end up accepting Jesus, and joining the crusade.

TGBaker wrote:
...hey I from Tennessee originally

Which obviously didn't preclude you from becoming skeptical of religion.

And it shouldn't preclude anyone else either, as there is no correlation between intelligence and skepticism of myths.

 

The salient point in my previous satire, is that all these *cough* 'arguments' always come full circle to 'there's no other way' that reality could have occurred, but to be created by 'gods'.

Which, considering the history of feared supernatural gods that were fantasized about, and attributed to natural phenomena, throughout antiquity, it's only a seriously absence of modern global analysis that one could buy into the myth of a monotheistic god myth.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:TGBaker wrote:

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
I think that theists that come to this board simply want to prove their faith.

I completely disagree.

They're groomed to defend their faith, and be militant towards those who have not assimilated.

That is clearly written in scriptures.

TGBaker wrote:
Some are interested in saving us from Satan. 

Nope.

Not buying it.

They know the scam.

It doesn't matter so much what you do during your life, as long as you end up accepting Jesus, and joining the crusade.

TGBaker wrote:
...hey I from Tennessee originally

Which obviously didn't preclude you from becoming skeptical of religion.

And it shouldn't preclude anyone else either, as there is no correlation between intelligence and skepticism of myths.

 

The salient point in my previous satire, is that all these *cough* 'arguments' always come full circle to 'there's no other way' that reality could have occurred, but to be created by 'gods'.

Which, considering the history of feared supernatural gods that were fantasized about, and attributed to natural phenomena, throughout antiquity, it's only a seriously absence of modern global analysis that one could buy into the myth of a monotheistic god myth.

You sum up where I was moving the direction of the discussion I can buy there is a big bang.  Where is anything beyond applying tribal and cultural story that you can show me a god or his envolvement with the Big Bang.  One can only infer that there is a god from the Big Bang by already looking for evidence or data to support the belief. Fine Tuning can infer anything based upon your premise: The universe is fine tuned not for humans but for the machines that they willl develop that become self aware Borgs. The homo sapien is simply a step in the process. My borg is as plausible perhaps.  Asssuming natural theologyreally means finding evidence of a god  without recourse to scriptures or revelation.  The fine tuning may show at best interference in the inflation of the universe or simply that thing we were the result of absolute pure luck. As in philosophy you can pick and choose what physicts you buy into  But that shows at least unconscious bias.

It is hard to believe that there are theisms that continue to form. Most do splinter off from a religion that no longer works as new understanding of the world is compiled. I hung with the Baha'i faith about two years.  They are an off branch of Muslim and specifically Sufi  beliefs.  Their religion is less than 200 years old. But they made Moses, Buddha, Mohammaed,  Jesus, the Bab and Bahaullah prophets. But during my stay I saw the emphasis shift from Bahauallah as prophet and mirror of god  who taught how to pray to god to being directly prayed to.  I think is is a typical pattern in which Jesus fits. They get rid of the big bang and say that the universe has always been eternally created so that Allah can be always creator.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

cj wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

The sad fact is that 99% of atheists are idiots.  I'm not trying to be mean, but that is just a fact.  Most atheists are not sophisticated, and their points are easily dismantled.  If you present an argument to them, they simply resort to usual one-liners such as "why does this prove God and not the FSM" or "how do you know????" because they just cannot grasp the arguments.  Many times, the responses are just downright incoherent and trade upon misunderstandings of the actual arguments being presented.

Truth be told, I think I am done with atheist discussion boards.  If most atheists were like James Sennett or TGBaker, it would probably be more entertaining, but unfortunately most atheists are not like that.  It's simply not worth my time. 

 

I am not a philosopher, I do not even pretend to be interested in philosophical discussions.  That does not mean I am an idiot or that you are more intelligent than I am.  We just have different views of the world and - from what I have read recently from neurological studies - different physical brain structures.  Again, it is not a matter of intelligence.

With respect to the God issue, you are an idiot.  The reason is that you consistently spend time on this forum propagating a particular paradigm under the auspices of the notion that the other side lacks sufficient evidence, and yet you define evidence in such a way that necessitates that your paradigm be true. Either you are being dishonest, or you are an idiot--take your pick.  

To say, "I want you to present evidence of God, but you can't use metaphysics" is like saying "I want evidence that OJ committed the murder, but you can't use DNA evidence."  It is simply to judge something out of its category, and trades upon a misunderstanding of what "God" means to the person on the other side.  (It may even be futile for me to bring up things like category mistakes, since that is in philosophy which you are not interested in.)  There is no empirical data for God that is not circumstantial, because God is understood to be the ultimate grounds for the possibility of any empirical data at all; as such, you cannot subject God to the same standards of evidence that you would apply to the things that he made possible.  Moreover, if your position is that empirical observation is the best way to ascertain truth, then I would press you with the same question that I posed to redneF (another idiot): What empirical data do you have which shows that empirical data is the best producer of truth?  There's none; it is just your presupposition based on your own indoctrinations or wishful thinking.

(Note that when I asked redneF this question, the debate was over; he could not answer it.  He simply called the question stupid, dodged it, and declared himself the winner.  It was clear that he was outmatched; he even admitted that he had no exposure to the philosophical arguments for God before recently. Like you, he was confused by logical argumentation, as he clearly did not understand what logic meant.  But really, he was not a challenge--beating him was easy.)

None of this makes you a "realist"; it just makes you ignorant and pig-headed.  It means that you are simply not interested in looking at the actual evidence, because you've arbitrary defined "evidence" in a particular way, or blindly believed others who defined it in that way. 

But you do not even need to explain yourself, because I know very well why you are an atheist:  The existence of God--namely, the Christian God--would affect your life, and from it you could infer that you are in fact a horrible person who needs a savior.  It's a tough fact to accept.  


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Your arguments

redneF wrote:

Your arguments are circular. We demonstrated that, and you simply refuse to understand, or acknowledge that.

Who is "we"?  Even other atheists were pointing out that your posts were long drawn-out incoherent rants.  I even wondered whether you were mentally disabled, based on the way you post.  It is borderline trolling, for you do not much more than flood the forum with these bizarre quasi-poetic rants that make absolutely no sense.

Quote:
Your arguments are embarrassingly easy to shut down with 2 simple questions:

1- According to who?

2- According to what?

See?  This is your first mistake.  You have no conception of the notion of axiomatic truths, which are self-evident truisms that ground the very possibility of reasoning in which case such questions make no sense.  If I tell you that a dog is not a cat, there is no need for me to invoke any sort of authority--in this case, an authoritative "who" or "what" is not meaningful.

Quote:
Your ad nauseum "According to logic", is the most intellectually bankrupt attempt at posturing, and euphemism for 'agreeing with yourself'.

No, it's a tacit acknowledgement that epistemic confidence in certain notions are not based on a posteriori justification, which is obviously what you are looking for.  A metaphysical argument, in most instances, does not trade upon appeals to authority, because certain premises are self-verifying.  Do you require proof of the premise "N(A v ~A)"?

Quote:
Logic is based on hindsight.

Every single one of these ancient philosophers based their ideas and theories on drawing parallels based on hindsight, and arguments from incredulity and ignorance.

LOLOL

You said in our debate that you had no idea about the philosophical arguments for the existence of God until recently.  Now you are suddenly an expert in philosophy such that you can tell me what bases ancient philosopher's had for such and such?  What can you tell me about contemporary philosophers?

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Amusing, and a little sad,

Amusing, and a little sad, to read such abusive condescension, based on such groundless, primitive fantasy.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Is this village idiot

Is this village idiot morning on rationalresponders.com? 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Is this

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Is this village idiot morning on rationalresponders.com? 

I hope so, you are here after all.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:cj

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

cj wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

The sad fact is that 99% of atheists are idiots.  I'm not trying to be mean, but that is just a fact.  Most atheists are not sophisticated, and their points are easily dismantled.  If you present an argument to them, they simply resort to usual one-liners such as "why does this prove God and not the FSM" or "how do you know????" because they just cannot grasp the arguments.  Many times, the responses are just downright incoherent and trade upon misunderstandings of the actual arguments being presented.

Truth be told, I think I am done with atheist discussion boards.  If most atheists were like James Sennett or TGBaker, it would probably be more entertaining, but unfortunately most atheists are not like that.  It's simply not worth my time. 

 

I am not a philosopher, I do not even pretend to be interested in philosophical discussions.  That does not mean I am an idiot or that you are more intelligent than I am.  We just have different views of the world and - from what I have read recently from neurological studies - different physical brain structures.  Again, it is not a matter of intelligence.

With respect to the God issue, you are an idiot.  The reason is that you consistently spend time on this forum propagating a particular paradigm under the auspices of the notion that the other side lacks sufficient evidence, and yet you define evidence in such a way that necessitates that your paradigm be true. Either you are being dishonest, or you are an idiot--take your pick.  

To say, "I want you to present evidence of God, but you can't use metaphysics" is like saying "I want evidence that OJ committed the murder, but you can't use DNA evidence."  It is simply to judge something out of its category, and trades upon a misunderstanding of what "God" means to the person on the other side.  (It may even be futile for me to bring up things like category mistakes, since that is in philosophy which you are not interested in.)  There is no empirical data for God that is not circumstantial, because God is understood to be the ultimate grounds for the possibility of any empirical data at all; as such, you cannot subject God to the same standards of evidence that you would apply to the things that he made possible.  Moreover, if your position is that empirical observation is the best way to ascertain truth, then I would press you with the same question that I posed to redneF (another idiot): What empirical data do you have which shows that empirical data is the best producer of truth?  There's none; it is just your presupposition based on your own indoctrinations or wishful thinking.

(Note that when I asked redneF this question, the debate was over; he could not answer it.  He simply called the question stupid, dodged it, and declared himself the winner.  It was clear that he was outmatched; he even admitted that he had no exposure to the philosophical arguments for God before recently. Like you, he was confused by logical argumentation, as he clearly did not understand what logic meant.  But really, he was not a challenge--beating him was easy.)

None of this makes you a "realist"; it just makes you ignorant and pig-headed.  It means that you are simply not interested in looking at the actual evidence, because you've arbitrary defined "evidence" in a particular way, or blindly believed others who defined it in that way. 

But you do not even need to explain yourself, because I know very well why you are an atheist:  The existence of God--namely, the Christian God--would affect your life, and from it you could infer that you are in fact a horrible person who needs a savior.  It's a tough fact to accept.  

BUT Meta this is why I do not like to enter in discussions with folks. You called cj an idiot as well as pig-headed. I guesss because of my Christian background I can not nor do I like to talk to people that way.  The one thing I retain from Christianity is Jesus's teachings. What did he say in respect to calling a person idiot and you do so saying cj is an idiot about god. I can understand coming into the den of thieves and acquiring their language or attitude and being responsive to attacks on youself but there is a level in which attitude takes control of the person.  The problem with debate is that it is a competition whereas in discussion one may hear what another is saying rather than what was said.  Your talent and skill  set is logic and philosoph. It is not my strong suit. Nor a lot of folks. Mine was in New Testament scholarship and even there I'm an older fart. BUt bottom line people can and do think smartly and correctly when the hermeneutic is right.  Sorry that the job is demanding I spent twenty years as a social worker and believe that that stress is partly why I am here as a lab rat in an ongoing experiment of correcting the result of chromosone decay. Bu there seems to be enough time in this forum to discuss. Ours could have been as I said an informal leasurely discussion.  But you may be responding a lot today because you are off from work. 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:BUT Meta this

TGBaker wrote:

BUT Meta this is why I do not like to enter in discussions with folks. You called cj an idiot as well as pig-headed. I guesss because of my Christian background I can not nor do I like to talk to people that way.  The one thing I retain from Christianity is Jesus's teachings. What did he say in respect to calling a person idiot and you do so saying cj is an idiot about god. I can understand coming into the den of thieves and acquiring their language or attitude and being responsive to attacks on youself but there is a level in which attitude takes control of the person.  The problem with debate is that it is a competition whereas in discussion one may hear what another is saying rather than what was said.  Your talent and skill  set is logic and philosoph. It is not my strong suit. Nor a lot of folks. Mine was in New Testament scholarship and even there I'm an older fart. BUt bottom line people can and do think smartly and correctly when the hermeneutic is right.  Sorry that the job is demanding I spent twenty years as a social worker and believe that that stress is partly why I am here as a lab rat in an ongoing experiment of correcting the result of chromosone decay. Bu there seems to be enough time in this forum to discuss. Ours could have been as I said an informal leasurely discussion.  But you may be responding a lot today because you are off from work. 

TGBaker, I think I've been quite polite to you.  Yes, I am off from work today, but I am still not in a position to give your discussion the attention that it deserves.  

I know you have a Christian background, but I hope you can remember that Jesus was not a pacifist.  The Jesus that I know marched into the temple and trashed it, referred to priests as "white washed sepulchres", and testified that he comes to Earth with a sword.

Saying that cj is an "idiot about God" is not saying that cj is not intelligent.  She is an idiot about God in the same way that I am an idiot about biochemistry:  I know absolutely nothing about biochemistry.  At the same time, I am not spending time on biochemistry discussion boards telling everyone what a good biochemist is.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:cj

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

cj wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

The sad fact is that 99% of atheists are idiots.  I'm not trying to be mean, but that is just a fact.  Most atheists are not sophisticated, and their points are easily dismantled.  If you present an argument to them, they simply resort to usual one-liners such as "why does this prove God and not the FSM" or "how do you know????" because they just cannot grasp the arguments.  Many times, the responses are just downright incoherent and trade upon misunderstandings of the actual arguments being presented.

Truth be told, I think I am done with atheist discussion boards.  If most atheists were like James Sennett or TGBaker, it would probably be more entertaining, but unfortunately most atheists are not like that.  It's simply not worth my time. 

 

I am not a philosopher, I do not even pretend to be interested in philosophical discussions.  That does not mean I am an idiot or that you are more intelligent than I am.  We just have different views of the world and - from what I have read recently from neurological studies - different physical brain structures.  Again, it is not a matter of intelligence.

With respect to the God issue, you are an idiot. 

That's about as idiotic as a schizophrenic calling someone an idiot for not hearing the voices they hear, and are not audible, or detectable.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
The reason is that you...

STFU.

You have no rational basis to make moronic determinations of that magnitude, when you can only speculate and try and 'predict' how this universe was formed.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 Either you are being dishonest, or you are an idiot--take your pick.

False dichotomy.

She could be neither. 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 There is no empirical data for God that is not circumstantial

Then there's no reason to assume that one exists.

It's quite possible, and quite probable that extraterrestrial life exists elsewhere in this universe, but there's no reason to assume it.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 because God is understood to be...

Equivocation.

Gods are merely speculations, based on circumstantial evidence, as you just conceded.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
you cannot subject God to the same standards of evidence...

Patently false.

If one is able to adopt something based on circumstantial evidence, then one is able to reject something based on circumstantial evidence.

You people don't get to dictate to the rest of us, how to think, or what we need to accept as reality.

You people really have control issues, and are completely irrational in your insistence that skeptics have no grounds to reject your hypotheses.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
  Moreover, if your position is that empirical observation is the best way to ascertain truth, then I would press you with the same question that I posed to redneF (another idiot): What empirical data do you have which shows that empirical data is the best producer of truth? 

History. Duhhh... 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 There's none;

You people are so completely dishonest and equivocal.

How many times have I illustrated the example of "What goes up, must come down" is unequivocal proof that predictive modelling (forecasting) based on hindsight is abhorrently unreliable??

I also gave you the history of the progression of Aerodynamic (AKA Fluid Dynamics) understanding as proving how virtually impossible it is to 'forecast' such 'cause'effect' relationships, a priori, and you still insist on being obtuse and posture that I haven't provided positive proof that the scientific method is the best method of comprehensive understanding of reality.

Your challenges have been thoroughly met, and so easily debunked, I'd be embarrassed for you people, if I thought you were being sincere.

You people just need to be able to admit that you don't know anything for certain about how this universe was formed, because you don't know anything for certain about how this universe was formed.

You people are just not at the cutting edge of science and technology, like I, and others are.

You're just not.

Depending on the month, I receive between 15- 30 science and technology periodicals a month. These are strictly 'trade' periodicals. You won't find them at your local newstand, or book store.

It would be a full time job for a team of people just to read them all, and attend all the trade shows, lectures and symposiums, and stay on top of everything.

Any you want to posture that you, and your ilk are some kinds of fucking geniuses that we should all be in awe of, because you're regurgitating millenia old navel gazing?

You're lucky there's no law requiring that we stamp people's IQ's, spiritual beliefs and mental health on their foreheads.

You people and your beliefs, are being progressively more and more ignored and insignificant to individual desires for their civil liberties.

Just go back into your churches and imagine WTF you want, and stop making enemies out of people who want nothing to do with your fantasies.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 None of this makes you a "realist"

Actually, it does.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 it just makes you ignorant and pig-headed. 

Again, labelling people as ignorant and pig headed because they disbelieve your "Dragon in the garage" story, really doesn't prove you have an invisible dragon in your garage, as Carl Sagan pointed out in 'Demon- Haunted World".

It just makes you look the complete fool...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 It means that you are simply not interested in looking at the actual evidence

Complaining that your product is not marketable, or compelling due to the peoples' reaction to it, is an attempt to shift the blame.

That's all you people do, is either attempt to shift the blame, or shift the burden, with your lack of any cogent, or compelling arguments.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 because you've arbitrary defined "evidence" in a particular way

Stop being butthurt over a skeptic's reluctance to adopt your theories as being an absolutely accurate model of reality.

There are plenty of atheists that will admit that it's a possibility that a god could have created this universe.

I'm one of them.

There's no rational reason for me not to speculate that gods could possibly exist, because it makes no difference to me.

Same with aliens, or the Loch Ness Monster, or unicorns, or Bigfoot...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 ...or blindly believed others who defined it in that way. 

Now you're going to condemn those that 'blindly believe' something to be true?

That's funny...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
But you do not even need to explain yourself

That's correct.

There's no law against skepticism, or personal beliefs.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
...because I know very well why you are an atheist: 

Thanks for pointing out the painfully obvious, Captain. 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
The existence of God--namely, the Christian God--would affect your life

Nope.

Some people revel in their autonomy, and liberty.

Not everyone is a masochistic, or sycophant, or interested in being a slave.

Obviously, people who are determined to live a certain way, are going to live a certain way.

In any event, the Christian myth has absolution for deviants.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
...and from it you could infer that you are in fact a horrible person...

Going by the folklore of the OT, the Christian God is a bipolar blood thirsty rageaholic.

I'd gladly take my chances with going to hell, as it's possible, and probable that it's underrated.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
  It's a tough fact to accept. 

You don't have facts.

Just conjecture.

By your own admission, you don't have anything but circumstantial evidence to support your mythological god theory.

Otherwise, the whole world would be a Christian Theocracy.

It never was, and it never will be.

That's gotta be a tough fact for you people.

And you're really incessantly petulant and obnoxious over the reluctance of others to assimiliate into your sect.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Is this

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Is this village idiot morning on rationalresponders.com? 

Until you can demonstrate some empirical justification for your beliefs, you are just pulling a version of Pascal's wager:

You can't prove anything by our 'limited' standards of evidence, but we'lll find out when we die and end up in Hell, or perhaps simply never know the bliss of a heavenly afterlife, depending on whether you believe in a Hell or not.

All the stuff you've presented is circular reasoning and naked assertions, and demonstrations that not only a different kind of evidence is required to support your claims, but a different form of 'logic'. 

Your apparent need to throw gratuitous insults at people who don't accept your special 'logic' and 'evidence' suggests a fundamental doubt about the validity of your position...

We must be 'getting to you' at some level. I hope you don't think we do anything but laugh and shake our heads pityingly at your rants and insults...

Put up or shut up -  show us something verifiable about the empirical world which can only be explained by your God hypothesis.

As even Platinga conceded, the OA cannot prove God - you have to accept the basic proposition first.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: cj

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

cj wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

The sad fact is that 99% of atheists are idiots.  I'm not trying to be mean, but that is just a fact.  Most atheists are not sophisticated, and their points are easily dismantled.  If you present an argument to them, they simply resort to usual one-liners such as "why does this prove God and not the FSM" or "how do you know????" because they just cannot grasp the arguments.  Many times, the responses are just downright incoherent and trade upon misunderstandings of the actual arguments being presented.

Truth be told, I think I am done with atheist discussion boards.  If most atheists were like James Sennett or TGBaker, it would probably be more entertaining, but unfortunately most atheists are not like that.  It's simply not worth my time. 

 

I am not a philosopher, I do not even pretend to be interested in philosophical discussions.  That does not mean I am an idiot or that you are more intelligent than I am.  We just have different views of the world and - from what I have read recently from neurological studies - different physical brain structures.  Again, it is not a matter of intelligence.

With respect to the God issue, you are an idiot.  The reason is that you consistently spend time on this forum propagating a particular paradigm under the auspices of the notion that the other side lacks sufficient evidence, and yet you define evidence in such a way that necessitates that your paradigm be true. Either you are being dishonest, or you are an idiot--take your pick.  

To say, "I want you to present evidence of God, but you can't use metaphysics" is like saying "I want evidence that OJ committed the murder, but you can't use DNA evidence."  It is simply to judge something out of its category, and trades upon a misunderstanding of what "God" means to the person on the other side.  (It may even be futile for me to bring up things like category mistakes, since that is in philosophy which you are not interested in.)  There is no empirical data for God that is not circumstantial, because God is understood to be the ultimate grounds for the possibility of any empirical data at all; as such, you cannot subject God to the same standards of evidence that you would apply to the things that he made possible.  Moreover, if your position is that empirical observation is the best way to ascertain truth, then I would press you with the same question that I posed to redneF (another idiot): What empirical data do you have which shows that empirical data is the best producer of truth?  There's none; it is just your presupposition based on your own indoctrinations or wishful thinking.

(Note that when I asked redneF this question, the debate was over; he could not answer it.  He simply called the question stupid, dodged it, and declared himself the winner.  It was clear that he was outmatched; he even admitted that he had no exposure to the philosophical arguments for God before recently. Like you, he was confused by logical argumentation, as he clearly did not understand what logic meant.  But really, he was not a challenge--beating him was easy.)

None of this makes you a "realist"; it just makes you ignorant and pig-headed.  It means that you are simply not interested in looking at the actual evidence, because you've arbitrary defined "evidence" in a particular way, or blindly believed others who defined it in that way. 

But you do not even need to explain yourself, because I know very well why you are an atheist:  The existence of God--namely, the Christian God--would affect your life, and from it you could infer that you are in fact a horrible person who needs a savior.  It's a tough fact to accept.  

 

I debated whether to reply or not.  I haven't called you any names --- and I wonder why you are calling us names.

First off, metaphysics is not evidence of any kind.  You have put together a bunch of logical statements that flow nicely and that make you feel comfortable.  So god/s/dess can not be proven any other way.  I'll go along with that.  I won't go along with that is evidence of s/he/its/their existence.

Evidence that empirical reasoning works?  Um---we are typing on computers linked to a network of servers run by electricity -- etc.  You have in door plumbing that works?  You are wearing clothes made by machine powered looms and dyed with coal tar dyes?  This isn't evidence that the scientific method with all its empirical reasoning and evidence requirements works?

And, you are again making assumptions about my history and my beliefs.  I used to be a bible toting church going christian.  And I honestly and sincerely tried to be a good christian and do what god wanted and so on and so forth.  One of my sticking points was that you could be an outstanding moral person, so squeaky clean you reflected sunlight.  And yet, if you didn't go to church, let Jesus into your heart, blah, blah -- you were a bad person.  Sorry, I am not a bad person, I do not need to be forgiven of non-existent sins, I don't need an imaginary friend.  I have plenty of real friends in a rich and loving life.

Fuck off.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Matthew 5:22

But I tell you, that everyone who is angry with his
brother without a cause shall be in danger of the
judgment; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca!'
shall be in danger of the council; and whoever shall say,
'You fool!' shall be in danger of the fire of Gehenna.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I debated whether

cj wrote:

I debated whether to reply or not.  I haven't called you any names --- and I wonder why you are calling us names.

I'm only telling the truth.  You guys are flagrant idiots when it comes to issues of metaphysics and theology.  I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but I think it needs to be said.

The funny part is that several posters in this thread are acting like they are magnanimous, even though a simple eyeballing of this discussion board will show that any theist who does come here and act congenially ends up getting mocked or flamed for their beliefs.  Why is it such an issue that I am being a little more aggressive, when you guys are always doing the same thing?  I'm not going to buy it.  

Quote:
First off, metaphysics is not evidence of any kind.  You have put together a bunch of logical statements that flow nicely and that make you feel comfortable.  So god/s/dess can not be proven any other way.  I'll go along with that.  I won't go along with that is evidence of s/he/its/their existence.

Again, this is just a baseless assertion that trades upon a presupposition of your paradigm of reality.  Earlier, I presented an argument via modal logic, and nowhere did you point to a false premise or an invalid form.  You simply declared that you don't need God and just ignored the proof; how is that reasonable?  You are simply declaring that the argument is a "bunch of logical statements" without addressing why it does not prove anything.  Can you provide an example of a deductively valid argument with true premises whose conclusion does not follow?

This is why you deserve to be called an idiot--this sort of argumentation is idiotic.  You don't like metaphysics; therefore, metaphysics cannot prove anything.  Do you really expect me to take this seriously?  

Quote:
Evidence that empirical reasoning works?

No!  Evidence that it is the only producer of truth.  Can you prove that without science, it is impossible for us to know anything?

Quote:
Um---we are typing on computers linked to a network of servers run by electricity -- etc.  You have in door plumbing that works?  You are wearing clothes made by machine powered looms and dyed with coal tar dyes?  This isn't evidence that the scientific method with all its empirical reasoning and evidence requirements works?

So your argument is as follows:

(1) The internet exists.

(2) I am not naked.

(3) My house is not flooded.

THEREFORE, the only way we can know anything is by science.

Okay.  How is that a valid argument?

Quote:
And, you are again making assumptions about my history and my beliefs.  I used to be a bible toting church going christian.  And I honestly and sincerely tried to be a good christian and do what god wanted and so on and so forth.  One of my sticking points was that you could be an outstanding moral person, so squeaky clean you reflected sunlight.  And yet, if you didn't go to church, let Jesus into your heart, blah, blah -- you were a bad person.  Sorry, I am not a bad person, I do not need to be forgiven of non-existent sins, I don't need an imaginary friend.  I have plenty of real friends in a rich and loving life.

I could care less about your history, but from what you've just stated I can reasonably infer that you had no understanding of your religion--even when you professed to being a Christian.  The Bible states that nobody is good, not even the followers of Christ.  The reason Christ came in the first place was that such people needed him as a savior, because they were bad people.  When you are saved by the grace of God, you do not suddenly become a good person; you become a bad person who has been forgiven.  This is a crucial point which separates Christianity from all of the other works righteousness religions.


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Until you

BobSpence1 wrote:

Until you can demonstrate some empirical justification for your beliefs

Until you can demonstrate that I need empirical justification for my beliefs, everything you say is just coming out of a bull's ass.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: Is

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Is this village idiot morning on rationalresponders.com? 

So you're just going to run your mouth and after you whined like a little girl about people being rude around here, huh, Slick?

 

Give a theist enough time, and they always show their true colors, and always prove it doesn't matter at all what kind of a fucking cunt you are in your lifetime.

You fucking hypocrites shouldn't be allowed in hospitals either, since God has a 'plan' for when it is that you should die...

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Until you can demonstrate some empirical justification for your beliefs

Until you can demonstrate that I need empirical justification for my beliefs, everything you say is just coming out of a bull's ass.

el oh el, no you don't need any evidence, you can just make shit up and it's fine by me but don't expect anyone else to believe it.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Until you can demonstrate some empirical justification for your beliefs

Until you can demonstrate that I need empirical justification for my beliefs, everything you say is just coming out of a bull's ass.

If your beliefs are not demonstrable in the real world we share, they are irrelevant within this reality, whether they can be justified within the framework of assumptions of your world-view or not.

Computers, air travel, communication and GPS satellites, etc, etc, are the results of empirical investigation of reality, ie systematic observation, experiment, testing and confirmation. They work, and millions of people use them every day. 

You are the one who only has stuff pulled out of your nether region, void of anything but wishful thinking.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:If your

BobSpence1 wrote:

If your beliefs are not demonstrable in the real world we share, they are irrelevant within this reality, whether they can be justified within the framework of assumptions of your world-view or not.

Computers, air travel, communication and GPS satellites, etc, etc, are the results of empirical investigation of reality, ie systematic observation, experiment, testing and confirmation. They work, and millions of people use them every day. 

You are the one who only has stuff pulled out of your nether region, void of anything but wishful thinking.

The law of noncontradiction, 2 + 2 = 4, the moral principle that you ought not murder, free will, the reliability of the senses, the existence of the self, and so forth have all never been proven by science, yet they are relevant to the actual world.

Science gives us consumer goods; therefore, we can only know things by science?  How is that a valid argument?


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

If your beliefs are not demonstrable in the real world we share, they are irrelevant within this reality, whether they can be justified within the framework of assumptions of your world-view or not.

Computers, air travel, communication and GPS satellites, etc, etc, are the results of empirical investigation of reality, ie systematic observation, experiment, testing and confirmation. They work, and millions of people use them every day. 

You are the one who only has stuff pulled out of your nether region, void of anything but wishful thinking.

The law of noncontradiction, 2 + 2 = 4, the moral principle that you ought not murder, free will, the reliability of the senses, the existence of the self, and so forth have all never been proven by science, yet they are relevant to the actual world.

Science gives us consumer goods; therefore, we can only know things by science?  How is that a valid argument?

These general laws are mandated by society to maintain cohesion, social science might help you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_research

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Again,

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Again, this is just a baseless assertion that trades upon a presupposition of your paradigm of reality.  Earlier, I presented an argument via modal logic, and nowhere did you point to a false premise or an invalid form.  You simply declared that you don't need God and just ignored the proof; how is that reasonable?  You are simply declaring that the argument is a "bunch of logical statements" without addressing why it does not prove anything.  Can you provide an example of a deductively valid argument with true premises whose conclusion does not follow?

 

We did that for you.  Many times.  Take your exact proof and substitute in any old god/s/dess and you have the exact same proof.  Your premises are not demonstrably true.  You start with god/s/dess existing and you end with god/s/dess existing.  This is circular reasoning.  Even a cranky old lady who hates this nonsense can see that.

I stated in my argument against your proof that I can not conceive of a god/s/dess that fits your definition of same.  Therefore, to me, your proof does not start with a demonstrably true premise.  You have to back waaaayyyyyy up and demonstrate this mythical, magical, super duper being exists.  Because I see no way that can be possible.  Therefore, your "proof" proves nothing.

We have told you this in different ways numerous times.  This makes you the idiot, not us.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

This is why you deserve to be called an idiot--this sort of argumentation is idiotic.  You don't like metaphysics; therefore, metaphysics cannot prove anything.  Do you really expect me to take this seriously?  

Quote:
Evidence that empirical reasoning works?

No!  Evidence that it is the only producer of truth.  Can you prove that without science, it is impossible for us to know anything?

Quote:
Um---we are typing on computers linked to a network of servers run by electricity -- etc.  You have in door plumbing that works?  You are wearing clothes made by machine powered looms and dyed with coal tar dyes?  This isn't evidence that the scientific method with all its empirical reasoning and evidence requirements works?

So your argument is as follows:

(1) The internet exists.

(2) I am not naked.

(3) My house is not flooded.

THEREFORE, the only way we can know anything is by science.

Okay.  How is that a valid argument?

 

These are example of how empirical methods work.  I could - and I shouldn't have to tell you this - have produced hundreds of thousands of such examples.  Show me one technological innovation that came from a metaphysical proof.  One.

No?  Then what "truth" does metaphysics give us?  Oh, yeah, a demonstrably sadistic god/s/dess who creates trashy humans so s/he/it/they can burn them in hell for eternity while all the goody two shoe suck ups laugh.  <sarcasm> Charming. </sarcasm>  This is supposed to appeal to me?

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I could care less about your history, but from what you've just stated I can reasonably infer that you had no understanding of your religion--even when you professed to being a Christian.  The Bible states that nobody is good, not even the followers of Christ.  The reason Christ came in the first place was that such people needed him as a savior, because they were bad people.  When you are saved by the grace of God, you do not suddenly become a good person; you become a bad person who has been forgiven.  This is a crucial point which separates Christianity from all of the other works righteousness religions.

 

Forgiven for what?  Let's see - I could murder all the people on my block and pray for forgiveness and get into heaven.  Yay!  Or, I could steal millions of dollars from people to support my bogus church and pray for forgiveness and get into heaven.  Yay!  Or, how about child pornography, pray for forgiveness and get into heaven.  Yay!  I could keep this up all day.  Do any bad shit I want, pray for forgiveness and go to heaven.  Whoopie-fucking-do.

So I can hang with people like you?  I would rather go to hell.

I had enough of people telling me I'm a bad person.  I don't need it, want it, or have to put up with it.  I am a good person - and you can go to heaven without me. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

robj101 wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

If your beliefs are not demonstrable in the real world we share, they are irrelevant within this reality, whether they can be justified within the framework of assumptions of your world-view or not.

Computers, air travel, communication and GPS satellites, etc, etc, are the results of empirical investigation of reality, ie systematic observation, experiment, testing and confirmation. They work, and millions of people use them every day. 

You are the one who only has stuff pulled out of your nether region, void of anything but wishful thinking.

The law of noncontradiction, 2 + 2 = 4, the moral principle that you ought not murder, free will, the reliability of the senses, the existence of the self, and so forth have all never been proven by science, yet they are relevant to the actual world.

Science gives us consumer goods; therefore, we can only know things by science?  How is that a valid argument?

These general laws are mandated by society to maintain cohesion, social science might help you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_research

Oh, so at one time everybody assumed that 1 + 1 = 3, but decided after a while that it wasn't working so well for them and that 1 + 1 should be 2 instead?  So, if 1 + 1 = 3 worked better for them, then we would still believe that today?  Are calculators programmed to give us answers pertaining to what would best promote social cohesion?  

Until we realized what worked for society, did we assume that all standing people were also sitting down, and that dogs were cats and circles were squares?

Who decided that society would be better if we simply presumed that we actually existed?  Descartes?  Was that his motivation?

Did we choose to have free will, when we could have chosen not to be free (calling Geddy Lee!)?

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: I'm

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
I'm only telling the truth.  You guys are flagrant idiots when it comes to issues of metaphysics and theology. 

That's about as stupid as an astrologist categorizing people as idiots who know how inane their woo woo is.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but I think it needs to be said.

In case you haven't noticed, your opinions carry no weight whatsoever...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 ... any theist who does come here and act congenially ends up getting mocked or flamed for their beliefs. 
 

At least we don't burn you people at the stake...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Why is it such an issue that I am being a little more aggressive

The problem is you're certifiably insane.

You do not have a cogent, compelling argument.

It won't get better with age, or with repetition, yet you keep expecting a different outcome with every attempt.

That's certifiably insane. 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
  Earlier, I presented an argument via modal logic, and nowhere did you point to a false premise or an invalid form.
 

There's no obligation to grant your premises as true.

I've explained to you countless times that for millenia, it was completely logical to assume that "What goes up, must come down", because it was built upon 'true' premises (truths that were assumed to be compatible with reality) that turned out to be false.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 You simply declared that you don't need God and just ignored the proof; how is that reasonable?

Occam's Razor.

Your theory is without precedent.

The End. 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 You are simply declaring that the argument is a "bunch of logical statements" without addressing why it does not prove anything. 

Because only hindsight will demonsrate how compatible your theories are with reality. 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 Can you provide an example of a deductively valid argument with true premises whose conclusion does not follow?

"What goes up, must come down"

You are as persistent now, as those morons were then.

Hindsight's a beotch, huh?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 This is why you deserve to be called an idiot--this sort of argumentation is idiotic. 
 

Ya, well hurling insults is all you fucking impotent pseudo scientists can do nowadays, since you've been overthrown, and aren't able to burn us at the stake anymore for telling you to take your moronic 'flat earth' proofs, and shove them where the sun don't shine.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 You don't like metaphysics; therefore, metaphysics cannot prove anything. 

That's like attacking people for not believing magic proves anything.

That's batshit crazy. 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 Do you really expect me to take this seriously?

Why would anyone care what you people think? 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

cj wrote:

Evidence that empirical reasoning works?

No!  Evidence that it is the only producer of truth.  

Evidence is the only way to distinguish the difference between a speculation and reality.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 Can you prove that without science, it is impossible for us to know anything?

Non sequitur.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

cj wrote:

Um---we are typing on computers linked to a network of servers run by electricity -- etc.  You have in door plumbing that works?  You are wearing clothes made by machine powered looms and dyed with coal tar dyes?  This isn't evidence that the scientific method with all its empirical reasoning and evidence requirements works?

So your argument is as follows:

(1) The internet exists.

(2) I am not naked.

(3) My house is not flooded.

THEREFORE, the only way we can know anything is by science.

Okay.  How is that a valid argument?

That's not her argument.

You've presented a strawman.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
  I could care less about your history

I'm going to make a prediction that she's equal to you in that regard... 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 but from what you've just stated I can reasonably infer that you had no understanding of your religion--even when you professed to being a Christian. 

The True Scotsman Fallacy. 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 The Bible states that nobody is good, not even the followers of Christ.

Legends and folklore written by men is merely literature.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 The reason Christ came in the first place was that such people needed him as a savior, because they were bad people. 

The legend of Jesus is a fabrication.

Theologians have proven that sufficiently. 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 When you are saved by the grace of God, you do not suddenly become a good person; you become a bad person who has been forgiven

That's an awesome loophole, in order to avoid filtering disqualifying everyone.

Keeps the attendance up, and keep the cash coming in. 

What a slogan:

"You're fucking scum, but if you kiss my ass enuf, I'll let you keep doing so"

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 This is a crucial point which separates Christianity from all of the other works righteousness religions.

Don't call us, we'll call you...

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Did we

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Did we choose to have free will, when we could have chosen not to be free (calling Geddy Lee!)?

 

  You have chosen not to be free.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: the

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 the moral principle that you ought not murder

Killing is justifiable.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 free will

What about it?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 the reliability of the senses
 

Patently False.

Human senses are horribly prone to quantification error. We cannot calibrate our senses.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 ...we can only know things by science?  

None of us made the claim that we can only know things by the scientific method.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
How is that a valid argument?

It's not.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:We did that for

cj wrote:

We did that for you.  Many times.  Take your exact proof and substitute in any old god/s/dess and you have the exact same proof.  Your premises are not demonstrably true.  You start with god/s/dess existing and you end with god/s/dess existing.  This is circular reasoning.  Even a cranky old lady who hates this nonsense can see that.

There is no "we" here.  Nobody made your idiotic comments except for you.  Let's make that clear.

My premises are not "demonstrably" true because a priori propositions require no demonstration; they are self-verifying.  Do you need a demonstration that 3(4) = 12?  

Quote:
I stated in my argument against your proof that I can not conceive of a god/s/dess that fits your definition of same.  Therefore, to me, your proof does not start with a demonstrably true premise.  You have to back waaaayyyyyy up and demonstrate this mythical, magical, super duper being exists.  Because I see no way that can be possible.  Therefore, your "proof" proves nothing.

We have told you this in different ways numerous times.  This makes you the idiot, not us.

Again, there is no "we" here.  Obviously, that would make your defense a little bit stronger if you felt that you had an army behind you, but nobody said what you said except you.  You can argue all day that you "implied" it in your post, and you can stand on the shoulders of other people all you like, but I remember what you said.  You said that the truths were merely vacuous, and personally had no affect upon your life.  You did not actually address the truth of the premises or the validity of the argument.  

Your comments afterwards were that God was not maximally great because he did evil things in the Bible, which trades upon nothing but your subjectivity. Now you are revising your rebuttal to say that you cannot conceive of a maximally great being, or that it is impossible.  So, you are simply doing what Bob was doing earlier, which is throwing things against the wall until something sticks.  Your objections are easily defeated, but I don't feel like doing it here because that is not the point of this post.  The point was that you were automatically disavowing any and all metaphysical proofs, whereas now you seem to be saying that logical arguments are adequate but that this particular one is not.  So can we know things by logic or not?  Make up your mind.

Quote:
These are example of how empirical methods work.  I could - and I shouldn't have to tell you this - have produced hundreds of thousands of such examples.  Show me one technological innovation that came from a metaphysical proof.  One.

What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

The whole point is that producing technology or nice little toys for us to play with has nothing to do with epistemology.  You are simply throwing a red herring.  

Can you prove that science is the only way we can know things?

Quote:
Forgiven for what?  Let's see - I could murder all the people on my block and pray for forgiveness and get into heaven.  Yay!  Or, I could steal millions of dollars from people to support my bogus church and pray for forgiveness and get into heaven.  Yay!  Or, how about child pornography, pray for forgiveness and get into heaven.  Yay!  I could keep this up all day.  Do any bad shit I want, pray for forgiveness and go to heaven.  Whoopie-fucking-do.

So I can hang with people like you?  I would rather go to hell.

I had enough of people telling me I'm a bad person.  I don't need it, want it, or have to put up with it.  I am a good person - and you can go to heaven without me. 

You are continuing to throw red herrings.

Would you be willing to acknowledge that you never understood Christianity, even when you professed to being a Christian?


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:robj101

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

If your beliefs are not demonstrable in the real world we share, they are irrelevant within this reality, whether they can be justified within the framework of assumptions of your world-view or not.

Computers, air travel, communication and GPS satellites, etc, etc, are the results of empirical investigation of reality, ie systematic observation, experiment, testing and confirmation. They work, and millions of people use them every day. 

You are the one who only has stuff pulled out of your nether region, void of anything but wishful thinking.

The law of noncontradiction, 2 + 2 = 4, the moral principle that you ought not murder, free will, the reliability of the senses, the existence of the self, and so forth have all never been proven by science, yet they are relevant to the actual world.

Science gives us consumer goods; therefore, we can only know things by science?  How is that a valid argument?

These general laws are mandated by society to maintain cohesion, social science might help you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_research

Oh, so at one time everybody assumed that 1 + 1 = 3, but decided after a while that it wasn't working so well for them and that 1 + 1 should be 2 instead?  So, if 1 + 1 = 3 worked better for them, then we would still believe that today?  Are calculators programmed to give us answers pertaining to what would best promote social cohesion?  

Until we realized what worked for society, did we assume that all standing people were also sitting down, and that dogs were cats and circles were squares?

Who decided that society would be better if we simply presumed that we actually existed?  Descartes?  Was that his motivation?

Did we choose to have free will, when we could have chosen not to be free (calling Geddy Lee!)?

 

Your action/reaction nerve is broken. At one time in our history murder may have been quite acceptable but as people got together they may have realized it was not such a great idea to kill each other off. Why do I have to explain common sense stuff to a self proclaimed phlisophical know it all?

No one has to presume that we exist because what we have is what we fukin have, You try to hard by delving into philosophical bullshit.

Common Sense > Philosophy, any day.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: cj

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

cj wrote:

We did that for you.  Many times.  Take your exact proof and substitute in any old god/s/dess and you have the exact same proof.  Your premises are not demonstrably true.  You start with god/s/dess existing and you end with god/s/dess existing.  This is circular reasoning.  Even a cranky old lady who hates this nonsense can see that.

There is no "we" here.  Nobody made your idiotic comments except for you.  Let's make that clear.

My premises are not "demonstrably" true because a priori propositions require no demonstration; they are self-verifying.  Do you need a demonstration that 3(4) = 12?  

 

If I were a mathematician, the answer would be yes, we need to demonstrate that 3*4=12.  Multiplication was not proven until the Indian mathematician, Brahmagupta - about 628 CE.

A priori premises require that they have a remote chance of being true.  I am currently taking a class in Discrete Stuctures, Logics, and Computability.  So I do know more than maybe I have led you to believe.  Premises must have a value that is plausible for that premise.  If I wish to prove A \/ B, I may propose that either A or B is either true or false.  But I may not propose A is green and B is purple with pink polka dots and base my proof on those values.

You have said - god is "infinite" and you had a long discussion with BobSpence1 about it.  You stated it as true and told everyone it was impossible to prove you false.  I maintain that god/s/dess can not be "infinite" as it is impossible for any entity to be "infinite".  That is exactly like saying "A is green" and making a proof based on that premise.

If you really want to convince me, you are going to have to show me why your version of god/s/dess might possibly be true.  Cause I ain't buying it so far and you haven't convinced me.  Therefore, your proof is not a proof of anything but your wishful thinking.  From my perspective.

And you must have a freakishly short memory to forget all the times people on this site have told you you are full of it for just this reason.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

cj wrote:
I stated in my argument against your proof that I can not conceive of a god/s/dess that fits your definition of same.  Therefore, to me, your proof does not start with a demonstrably true premise.  You have to back waaaayyyyyy up and demonstrate this mythical, magical, super duper being exists.  Because I see no way that can be possible.  Therefore, your "proof" proves nothing.

We have told you this in different ways numerous times.  This makes you the idiot, not us.

Again, there is no "we" here.  Obviously, that would make your defense a little bit stronger if you felt that you had an army behind you, but nobody said what you said except you.  You can argue all day that you "implied" it in your post, and you can stand on the shoulders of other people all you like, but I remember what you said.  You said that the truths were merely vacuous, and personally had no affect upon your life.  You did not actually address the truth of the premises or the validity of the argument.  

 

Yeah, I said that.  And other people agree with me.  Lalib, for one.  It isn't the army behind me holding up my position, it is the collective skepticism of the group that I am referring to.  And your blanket assertion we are all idiots.  Granted, because I responded to your post, you have singled me out for special idiocy.  meh.  Know what, I don't give a damn about your opinion of my intelligence or lack thereof.  Sucks to be you.

The truths you came up with and are holding onto so tightly are merely vacuous.  I haven't changed my mind on that.  God/s/dess has no impact on my life and I am certain there will be no impact when I die.  If  - by some strange twist you are correct - and I do wind up in front of a judge and jury when I die, I'll choose hell.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Your comments afterwards were that God was not maximally great because he did evil things in the Bible, which trades upon nothing but your subjectivity. Now you are revising your rebuttal to say that you cannot conceive of a maximally great being, or that it is impossible.  So, you are simply doing what Bob was doing earlier, which is throwing things against the wall until something sticks.  Your objections are easily defeated, but I don't feel like doing it here because that is not the point of this post.  The point was that you were automatically disavowing any and all metaphysical proofs, whereas now you seem to be saying that logical arguments are adequate but that this particular one is not.  So can we know things by logic or not?  Make up your mind.

 

I don't see that as a revision or a change of mind.  There isn't a "maximally" great being and I can not conceive of same.  Because there isn't one.  Okay, many artists through time have attempted to portray god/s/dess in paintings and sculpture.  So when you say - "god" - I can visualize the Sistine Chapel ceiling.  That doesn't mean I can conceive of that bearded guy as a god.  It is just a painting with no connection to reality.  There are paintings of unicorns and griffins and other mythical creatures.  So what.

As for the evil - that is one big reason for saying the christian god/s/dess is not so great.  It ties in with the other argument.  If said entity was so great, s/he/it/they could surely implement a system that really did reward the followers of said entity.  As it is, all "rewards" and "punishments" appear to be totally random with god followers faring no better or worse than the rest of us.  So the god/s/dess of the bible is not so great.

I haven't changed my mind about metaphysics.  They are still a waste of time.  Even the class I'm currently taking for a Computer Science major.  Try presenting a metaphysical proof to an executive that your program works and won't "blue screen".  (Actually true.  Some guys came up with a 200,000+  line proof that their new operating system won't "blue screen" and presented it at a conference.  All the math geeks-including my instructor-were very impressed. )  I am making the attempt to argue with you on your own ground.  Looks like I am not succeeding.  meh.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
These are example of how empirical methods work.  I could - and I shouldn't have to tell you this - have produced hundreds of thousands of such examples.  Show me one technological innovation that came from a metaphysical proof.  One.

What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

The whole point is that producing technology or nice little toys for us to play with has nothing to do with epistemology.  You are simply throwing a red herring.  

Can you prove that science is the only way we can know things?

 

I can know something if I can measure it.  I can know about height, weight, length, pressure, radiation of energy, etc.  If I can not measure it, what do I have?  <airy fairy voice> I feel the grandeur of the universe floating along in the spaces between the whichness of the why. </end afv>  Which is proof of what, exactly?

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
Forgiven for what?  Let's see - I could murder all the people on my block and pray for forgiveness and get into heaven.  Yay!  Or, I could steal millions of dollars from people to support my bogus church and pray for forgiveness and get into heaven.  Yay!  Or, how about child pornography, pray for forgiveness and get into heaven.  Yay!  I could keep this up all day.  Do any bad shit I want, pray for forgiveness and go to heaven.  Whoopie-fucking-do.

So I can hang with people like you?  I would rather go to hell.

I had enough of people telling me I'm a bad person.  I don't need it, want it, or have to put up with it.  I am a good person - and you can go to heaven without me. 

You are continuing to throw red herrings.

Would you be willing to acknowledge that you never understood Christianity, even when you professed to being a Christian?

 

I understood it just fine.  And I understand your position just fine.  You believe god/s/dess makes trash deliberately so they will be tortured for eternity unless they suck up to said entity.  Not a red herring at all as it is what you said.  You just don't like the way I reworded it.  meh.  TT.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

If your beliefs are not demonstrable in the real world we share, they are irrelevant within this reality, whether they can be justified within the framework of assumptions of your world-view or not.

Computers, air travel, communication and GPS satellites, etc, etc, are the results of empirical investigation of reality, ie systematic observation, experiment, testing and confirmation. They work, and millions of people use them every day. 

You are the one who only has stuff pulled out of your nether region, void of anything but wishful thinking.

The law of noncontradiction, 2 + 2 = 4, the moral principle that you ought not murder, free will, the reliability of the senses, the existence of the self, and so forth have all never been proven by science, yet they are relevant to the actual world.

Science gives us consumer goods; therefore, we can only know things by science?  How is that a valid argument?

The Law of Non Contradiction is derived as a basic working assumption for logic.

2+2=4 follows from the Law of Identity and The Law of Non-Contradiction, as the foundation of logic, and the definitions of the terms used in the expression.

These are the foundations of logic and math which are basic tools of science.

The moral concept that we should not kill without due cause, as in self-defence or in protection of another, is superior to that in the Bible, and follows from our need to cooperate in a society for mutual survival. Its origin has been investigated by Science, and such study has demonstrated similar basic codes in other animals.

Free will is an incoherent concept - all choices are determined by our experience (memories), our preferences, our reasoning, our emotional state, at the time we make a choice - all of which are in turn determined by a widening circle of other earlier states, decisions, and other influences, all of which are subject to empirical study by science. It is not a necessary concept. What we feel as we reason and make decisions is what we label 'free will' and a sense of 'self', and what lies behind these feelings of exercising free will is being studied by Science and revealing truths about our nature and the nature of thought not accessible to our thinking processes and introspection alone.

Our knowledge of the true shape of the world, and the true nature of the Universe, are all the result of scientific study, and overturned the erroneous assumptions derived from intuition and metaphysics.

The existence and nature of our personal awareness is also being studied by science, again way beyond what is possible from metaphysical ideas and pure reasoning.

Science has brought us massive improvements in the treatment of injury and disease, in our ability to grow more food, and provide shelter.

It has shown a more coherent picture of the proliferation of life, and is in the process of developing a framework to explain its origin.

Just a few things beyond 'consumer goods'.

Metaphysics has only produced naive, erroneous 'explanations' for any of the things that have since been properly studied by science.

And none of this is contingent on a God in any demonstrable way, in fact, the idea of God would now require explanation in the light of current knowledge, since the Biblical account is not consistent with our current understanding.

You were saying??

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: Your

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Your comments afterwards were that God was not maximally great because he did evil things in the Bible, which trades upon nothing but your subjectivity.

You're a fucking tool.

'Maximally great' is a qualitative determination.

'Qualities' are subjective.

Arguing that a god declaring himself 'good' and declaring others as 'bad', is why good and bad qualities are 'objective', is a moronic case of special pleading.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
You did not actually address the truth of the premises or the validity of the argument.

It doesn't matter how valid your argument is, for the simple fact that "If you can't show it, you don't know it ".

In simplest terms, we have never actually witnessed a universe forming, so we can only speculate on how this universe formed.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TG, I noticed that William

TG, I noticed that William Dembski's name has come up, and that you may not be up to speed on this guy.

Michael Behe, and John Calvert are other names that will probably come up, as well.

There's plenty of stuff on YouTube about these ID clowns, and some of their antics that'll explain a lot about the *cough* 'goodness', of these Christians...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPMwDRsfCW8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93mWjngq4oA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpeHrkbx9LU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z55oWS5vaUM&feature=relmfu

 

These guys were all involved in the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial.

 

Google for lectures by Eugenie Scott, and the National Center for Science Education, and their legal defense of science in schools, and the debunking of the ID Creationist scam. She's brilliant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE3Qvfm8jU0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
There is NO natural theology

There is NO natural theology that obtians.  If natural theology is the quest for evidence of god solely within nature one of the last candidates was the morphology and diversity of life.  This was quited by Darwin and research from his simple discovery. The cosmological origins is a gap that is being more readily filled by non-theistic theories.

In trying to read up on Dembski mentioned by Mr.Metaphysics of whom I haven't heard nor know I found:

Tipler's writings on scientific peer review[25] have been cited by William A. Dembski as having formed the basis of the process for "peer review" in the intelligent design journal Progress in Complexity, Information and Design of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, where both Tipler and Dembski served as fellows.[4]


Frank Jennings Tipler (born February 1, 1947 in Andalusia, Alabama[1]) is a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University. [2] Tipler has authored books and papers on the Omega Point, which he claims is a mechanism for the resurrection of the dead. It has been labeled as pseudoscience.[3] Tipler is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, a society advocating intelligent design.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler

 

In 2004, Behe published a paper with David Snoke, in the scientific journal Protein Science that uses a simple mathematical model to simulate the rate of evolution of proteins by point mutation,[30] which he states supports irreducible complexity, based on the calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed. However, the paper does not mention intelligent design nor irreducible complexity, which were removed, according to Behe, at the behest of the reviewers. Nevertheless, The Discovery Institute lists it as one of the "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design".[31]

Michael Lynch authored a response,[32] to which Behe and Snoke responded.[33] Protein Science discussed the papers in an editorial.[34]

Numerous scientists have debunked the work, pointing out that not only has it been shown that a supposedly irreducibly complex structure can evolve, but that it can do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions, and noting that Behe & Snoke's paper does not properly include natural selection and genetic redundancy. Some of the critics have also noted that the Discovery Institute continues to claim the paper as 'published evidence for design,' despite its offering no design theory nor attempting to model the design process, and therefore not providing an alternative to evolution.[35]

Many of Behe's statements have been challenged by biologist Kenneth Miller in his book, Finding Darwin's God. Behe has subsequently disputed Miller's points in an online essay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

AS FOR CONSCIOUSNESS: 

The last gap so to speak in which  theism and spritualism attempt their new agey revision is the yet to be resolved nature of consciousness.  There seems to be no viable reducibility of consciosness.  One is hard pressed to derive a theism from it thogh the New Agey folk are ctreating all sort of beliefs to sale the public.  Scientifically one might derive a pansychism but that i far from being formally proposed or tested (apart from New Agey kinda people). Fill in the gap spernatralists include the works by Penrose and Hameroff.

 

The Intellegent design movement appear to be taking the classical natural theological apologies and finding new ways to slvage them by revision and interpretation. Thus we can find even a resurrection mechanism in the fine tuning of the universe. I'd love to see that toy.

It seems that Mr. metaphysics has had time to eat popcorn with us today but not at least one last response in our discussion.

 

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The basic problem with the

The basic problem with the Modal OA, is that it is impossible to determine whether it is sound or not, since to know whether God is 'possibly necessary' would require complete knowledge of the nature of God and the workings of the Universe, due to the definition of 'God' as all-encompassing, affecting and involving every aspect of reality. IOW, IF God is possibly necessary, THEN he exists. But we cannot determine if He is 'possibly necessary'.

Since we do have alternative frameworks for explaining existence, which while not perfect, are more consistent with established theorise and observations, 'we have no need of that hypothesis'.

The older OA has essentially the same problem, it makes assertions which are simply not knowable by us, but it is easier to identify the problem in the Modal formulation because it is more formally defined.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology