Jesus Lives, and He Loves.

ImAJesusFreak
Theist
Posts: 12
Joined: 2011-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Jesus Lives, and He Loves.

Jesus still loves all people. And you can still be saved. Why would you not want to believe in God? There's so much bad in the world that it's amazing to know He is there to protect and love. And after life, I love knowing that I'm going to be in an amazing place called Heaven with all my loved ones that have passed on before me, instead of just going in the ground.

I am praying for each and everyone one of you hoping that you will come to know Christ as your personal savior.

Any questions about Christ? Contact me at karabo95@yahoo.com

God Bless.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:This may be

Quote:
This may be substantiated on the basis of simple facts such as, 'a code does not exist without a codifier'.

Quote:
Let me guess. And DNA is a code? Please don't be that lame.

you were about to deny it? Please don't be that lame.

 

Quote:
 

I see exactly what you mean. I just don't agree. The problem is that experiments and their results can, in principle, be observed and reproduced by anyone. E.g. I don't have to take your word that mixing chemicals X, Y, and Z will make a clear, blue liquid; I can watch you do it, and then, do it myself. True, you can argue that anyone can take a step of faith into Christianity and have their own personal experience, but that doesn't make the process objective. The results still can't be observed by all, and they're not even reproduced because everyone has a unique experience.

everyone has a unique experience of everything. The commonality of Christian experience is the work of the Holy Spirit. The atheist has no source of objectivity.

Quote:
Generally, the individual just attributes meaning to whatever they feel confirms their step of faith, any small coincidence, interesting event or positive thing could be a sign. Even a thought could be interpreted as 'not their own thought,' but a message from God.

this is a bold claim coming from one outside the spiritual epistemological system! It is God's business to communicate to his people that which he wishes to communicate, not for me to simply go around attributing things to him. Jesus said, "my sheep know my voice". We learn to do so. It's a matter of experience and spiritual maturity.

Quote:
Even if your God really did exist and was communicating to people this way, it's completely indistinguishable from a simple clusterfuck of confirmation bias, wishful thinking, illusory correlations, seeing patterns where none exist, and other psychological pitfalls. Other religions do the same thing.
 

see above. God communicates primarily through his word. The Christian does not need to go around 'working at' confirming God's existence to himself. He lives with an awareness of his presence. Yes, that is psychological, ie. it is 'of' the soul, but to say that it is ONLY psychological is mere reductionism. 

     

Quote:
You will find that many of them claim abusive "Christian" experience

in childhood. Some, but not all will be Catholic, which they confuse with Christianity . I haven't yet worked out why the percentage is so high but it's notable.

Quote:
*sigh*

not sure what you intended to convey here........reluctant agreement with some sorrow perhaps?

 

Quote:
The other thing is, don't stay here too long at a stretch........you'll need spiritual refreshment!

Now, this one is called cognitive dissonance.

no, it's what Christ called, "casting pearls before swine", ie don't share spiritual wisdom with those outside the realm of spiritual cognition.....it was my fault.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Buy yourself one of these for christmas, Freeminer

 

freeminer wrote:

 

Most people hear the Gospel several times from different sources before being saved and if they're not, they can never claim not to have heard the truth......that gives God a basis for judgment!  

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2ewsEKVJVA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

Only a total wanker would make the statement you make above.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is just a crock

 

freeminer wrote:

 

God communicates primarily through his word. The Christian does not need to go around 'working at' confirming God's existence to himself. He lives with an awareness of his presence. Yes, that is psychological, ie. it is 'of' the soul, but to say that it is ONLY psychological is mere reductionism. 

 

 

All the evidence suggests man wrote the bible. The christian cannot define god much less confirm its existence. Psychological things are not 'of the soul'. They are of the mind. Atheists do not follow scientism. We favour testable explanations because they are the best way we have found to understand things without bias. Things that are untestable are recognised as such. You, Freeminer, are the one insisting on absolute knowledge, on a paradoxically supernatural source of your 'objectivity'.

It's not true that hypotheses that are unproven are taken by empiricists on faith. Theories and hypotheses are constantly being challenged and re-made on the basis of new data. No one here but theists will insist there is a way to be absolutely sure of a thing. Most deliciously, your christian certainties tend to revolve around implicit knowledge of the mind of god. Of a personal relationship you imagine with a 'holy spirit'. Congratulations on giving JF a lesson in gold-plated wishful thinking. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Well said.

Well said.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13758
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
freeminer wrote:Quote:This

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
This may be substantiated on the basis of simple facts such as, 'a code does not exist without a codifier'.

Quote:
Let me guess. And DNA is a code? Please don't be that lame.

you were about to deny it? Please don't be that lame.

 

Quote:
 

I see exactly what you mean. I just don't agree. The problem is that experiments and their results can, in principle, be observed and reproduced by anyone. E.g. I don't have to take your word that mixing chemicals X, Y, and Z will make a clear, blue liquid; I can watch you do it, and then, do it myself. True, you can argue that anyone can take a step of faith into Christianity and have their own personal experience, but that doesn't make the process objective. The results still can't be observed by all, and they're not even reproduced because everyone has a unique experience.

everyone has a unique experience of everything. The commonality of Christian experience is the work of the Holy Spirit. The atheist has no source of objectivity.

Quote:
Generally, the individual just attributes meaning to whatever they feel confirms their step of faith, any small coincidence, interesting event or positive thing could be a sign. Even a thought could be interpreted as 'not their own thought,' but a message from God.

this is a bold claim coming from one outside the spiritual epistemological system! It is God's business to communicate to his people that which he wishes to communicate, not for me to simply go around attributing things to him. Jesus said, "my sheep know my voice". We learn to do so. It's a matter of experience and spiritual maturity.

Quote:
Even if your God really did exist and was communicating to people this way, it's completely indistinguishable from a simple clusterfuck of confirmation bias, wishful thinking, illusory correlations, seeing patterns where none exist, and other psychological pitfalls. Other religions do the same thing.
 

see above. God communicates primarily through his word. The Christian does not need to go around 'working at' confirming God's existence to himself. He lives with an awareness of his presence. Yes, that is psychological, ie. it is 'of' the soul, but to say that it is ONLY psychological is mere reductionism. 

     

Quote:
You will find that many of them claim abusive "Christian" experience

in childhood. Some, but not all will be Catholic, which they confuse with Christianity . I haven't yet worked out why the percentage is so high but it's notable.

Quote:
*sigh*

not sure what you intended to convey here........reluctant agreement with some sorrow perhaps?

 

Quote:
The other thing is, don't stay here too long at a stretch........you'll need spiritual refreshment!

Now, this one is called cognitive dissonance.

no, it's what Christ called, "casting pearls before swine", ie don't share spiritual wisdom with those outside the realm of spiritual cognition.....it was my fault.

"God is because he is"  "God does because he does" "God says because he says"

Naked assertions every one. These are not empirical testable falsifiable models. This is merely your mental masturbation due to your self centered wishful thinking.

"My snarfwidget is because he is"

"Allah does because he does"

"Thor says because he says"

There is no such thing as a disembodied magical super brain with magical super powers. Never was and never will be. This is merely you wanting a super hero to save you. It wasn't true when humans thought vocanos were gods. It wasn't true when humans thought the sun was a god. And your magic baby/zombie god is just as much a work of fiction.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Only a total wanker

Quote:

 Only a total wanker would make the statement you make above.

 

 

setting aside the limp ad hominem, what kind of impoverished mental process leads you to conclude that demonstrating your own depravity does you any intellectual credit?........I won't include moral credit since obviously you have no concept.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5875
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Belief in a 'God' provides

Belief in a 'God' provides no objectivity, no knowledge.

Such a being would be totally beyond our comprehension, we could not 'know' its purpose or motives with any certainty at all. It could change the nature of reality at a whim, so we could never have certain knowledge of anything.

Only the painstaking discipline of scientific study, where we seek not 'certainty', but consistent patterns in what we observe, that allows us to form 'models' of reality that can be tested and refined to establish high degrees of confidence, not certainty, allowing us to make the progress we have in technology that allows us, among other things, to communicate here.

Faith and revelation provide no knowledge at all, apart from the follies our wishes and desires and fears lead us to.

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13758
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
freeminer wrote:Quote: Only

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

 Only a total wanker would make the statement you make above.

 

 

setting aside the limp ad hominem, what kind of impoverished mental process leads you to conclude that demonstrating your own depravity does you any intellectual credit?........I won't include moral credit since obviously you have no concept.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" Thomas Jefferson.

Which is more important to you? The truth, or protecting your superstition because you get offended?

Here is what you are stupidly doing.

You, "The Chargers won the Superbowl this year"

Skeptic, "No dippy, the Packers did"

You "You offended me"

When believers falsely get offended by blasphemy I get the image of a midget standing spread eagle in front of the Terminator, shouting "DONT HIT MY GOD YOU MIGHT HURT HIM"

What the hell would you have us say to ANY CLAIM of a brain with no brain, no cerebellum, no neurons, no location, that resides everywhere and nowhere at the same time, that has magical super powers and can only seem to communicate with us through ancient books written in a scientifically ignorant age?

No one hates you because you believe. No one is trying to offend you just to piss you off. But to falsely use "ad homin" is absurd.

You are merely reacting to the cognitive dissonance we have fostered in you. Instead of bitching about our word choice, take a look at your own claims and try to understand WHY we reject your claims. If you can, you'll understand that you do no differently than we do when you reject the pet gods of other labels.

The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more pet deity than you do. When you understand why you reject all other claims besides your own, you will understand why we ridicule and blaspheme your claims as well.

We are not going to sugar coat what we think of ALL invisible friend claims, past and present, from volcano gods to the gods of Abraham. Invisible friends are merely human inventions and are just as ridiculous as the tooth fairy and Santa.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: God communicates

Quote:

 

God communicates primarily through his word. The Christian does not need to go around 'working at' confirming God's existence to himself. He lives with an awareness of his presence. Yes, that is psychological, ie. it is 'of' the soul, but to say that it is ONLY psychological is mere reductionism. 

 

 

Quote:
All the evidence suggests man wrote the bible.

 by your own admission, you don't HAVE all the evidence. However, even from the position of the unregenerate this is a highly irrational assertion. 

Quote:
The christian cannot define god much less confirm its existence.

by definition, the christian has ALREADY confirmed God's existence. With regard to definition, the scriptures give adequate information. 

Quote:
Psychological things are not 'of the soul'. They are of the mind.

you couldn't even define "mind". 

Quote:
Atheists do not follow scientism.

yes they do. 

Quote:
We favour testable explanations because they are the best way we have found to understand things without bias.

 the "God" explanation is perfectly testable, you merely seek an excuse not to test it. Everyone is biased.

Quote:
Things that are untestable are recognised as such.

obviously not.  For example, the fact that the age of the universe is untestable is blithely ignored in all the wild proclamations of pseudo-science.

Quote:
You, Freeminer, are the one insisting on absolute knowledge, on a paradoxically supernatural source of your 'objectivity'.

you're already contradicting yourself.........you've just claimed, "understanding without bias".[

Quote:
It's not true that hypotheses that are unproven are taken by empiricists on faith.

empiricists have a worldview; it is based on unproven hypotheses; ergo it is held by faith. 

Quote:
Theories and hypotheses are constantly being challenged and re-made on the basis of new data.

how do you determine what constitutes "data"? You have no more basis for determining what constiitutes data than you have for determining which "data" should impinge upon your worldview. Thus your bias dominates your thinking and not for empirical reasons as you like to imply but for purely emotional ones. That is why atheists are always so angry.......and sad.   

Quote:
No one here but theists will insist there is a way to be absolutely sure of a thing.

well, think about it........there may be a good reason! 

Quote:
Most deliciously, your christian certainties tend to revolve around implicit knowledge of the mind of god. Of a personal relationship you imagine with a 'holy spirit'.

do you see how quickly any claim to empiricism breaks down? You attribute "imagination" to me regarding a phenomenon of which, by your own admission, you have no experience. Atheists just can't help themselves. 

Quote:
Congratulations on giving JF a lesson in gold-plated wishful thinking. 

he already admitted to having that........what he needed was a grounding in rationality.

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13758
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:by your own admission,

Quote:
by your own admission, you don't HAVE all the evidence. However, even from the position of the unregenerate this is a highly irrational assertion.

But the claim of a non material invisible magical super brain with no cerebellum, no neurons and no location, that is perfectly rational.

Ok, did I tell you I own the Brooklyn Bridge? I'll sell it to you for $100. Oh, but the deed to it is invisible and was notarized by my invisible pink unicorn. Just have faith and you'll be able to put up your own toll road and make billions.

Does the ocean need Posiden to make waves or hurricanes? Does lightening need Thor to exist?

Bunk is bunk and a skunk is a skunk and your box is empty no matter how much you try to dress it up.

There is no such thing as an invisible friend. Never was, never will be. When our species goes extinct all god claims will die with us because there will be no future generation to sell our myths to.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:"Ridicule is the only

Quote:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" Thomas Jefferson.

which bit didn't he understand do you suppose?

 

Quote:
Which is more important to you? The truth,

define truth.

Quote:
or protecting your superstition

unsubstantiated presupposition 

Quote:
because you get offended?

what evidence do you have that I was offended? I merely pointed out the objective fact that his comment was ad hominem........it was. I expect this sort of thing from atheists.

 

Quote:
Here is what you are stupidly doing.

inference of stupidity?.........further ad hominem? You guys just can't help yourselves. If you think an assertion is irrational just demonstrate it.

Quote:
You are merely reacting to the cognitive dissonance we have fostered in you. Instead of bitching about our word choice, take a look at your own claims and try to understand WHY we reject your claims.

 Are you sure YOU know why you reject my claims?

Quote:
If you can, you'll understand that you do no differently than we do when you reject the pet gods of other labels.

I reject the pet gods of other labels for their overt irrationality and on grounds of personal knowledge. I reject atheism for the same reasons.

Quote:
The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more pet deity than you do. When you understand why you reject all other claims besides your own, you will understand why we ridicule and blaspheme your claims as well.

ridicule indicates intellectual poverty. Blasphemy indicates spiritual poverty.

Quote:
We are not going to sugar coat what we think of ALL invisible friend claims, past and present, from volcano gods to the gods of Abraham. Invisible friends are merely human inventions and are just as ridiculous as the tooth fairy and Santa.

get over the idea that I'm offended, I'm well aware that atheists can't help being offensive.........it's a spiritual issue. Btw.don't you ever tire of churning out all those atheist mantras?...........fairies, invisible friends.........all that nonsense?

 

 

 

 

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13758
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:ridicule indicates

Quote:
ridicule indicates intellectual poverty. Blasphemy indicates spiritual poverty.

Bullshit.

When I was a kid, I used to have the same stupid reaction to my mom when she responded to something stupid I was doing or saying. Cold water in the face does not make the person throwing it in your face immature. My mom was merely saying "Grow up".

Thomas Jefferson equated the virgin birth story to Minerva being born out of the brain of Jupiter. I would hardly call him immature merely because of the response of believers to that analogy. They were the immature ones who failed to understand WHY he said what he said. And he was a deist, not an atheist. He, unlike you, had no fear of blasphemy. He was more interested in the truth, than someone coddling his insecurities.

I find it sad that you care more about your pet god being picked on, than the truth that it is merely your own wishful thinking. This same insecure fear causes Muslims to threaten cartoonists and slam planes into buildings. It allows men to treat women as property. It allowed slavery and sexism.

If our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves. We would still believe that the sun rotated around the earth. Verbally if it takes cracking a few egos by splashing cold water on a bad argument to get people to wake up and face reality, damned fucking right I am going to do so.

Blaspheming changes society. It cures superstition. It ended the dark ages and stopped witch hunts. It brought us modern medicine. It ended slavery and sexism.

If you want to believe the moon is made of cheese and call me insecure I won't stop you. But do not expect me to coddle your insecurities. If you want me to value what you have to say, there is only one way to do it, evidence.

Proxy of popular belief is not evidence.

Proxy of tradition is not evidence.

Proxy of "don't pick on me" is not evidence.

Immature is going to a website you don't own, knowing before you post that your claims will get slapped around, and then bitch about something no one put a gun to your head to force you to do. That would be like a boxer getting into the ring knowing he will get punched and then bitching that they got punched.

You are failing to separate yourself from the claims you make. You are NOT what you claim. You're claims are what we are attacking, not you. We have never met you personally. This is strictly about the sentences you type here.

This is what we do here. Not just you, not just your religion, and not just religion. If a claim has a stench to it, like Big foot, or Ouija boards, or si fi little green men crop circle crap, we are going to call it like we see it.

You are going to make yourself miserable here if you take what we do personally. This is not Mister Roger's Neighborhood. You can make any claim you want, if we don't buy it we are not going to sugar coat our response. We won't hate you. We wont rape your women or barbecue your kittens. We simply wont adapt your position.

But if you wish to have a good stay here, STOP bitching and understand this is about the claims you make, nothing more.

You claim that there is an invisible friend. So what? All that proves is that you have a pet deity. You are not special in claiming a pet deity. Humans thought vocanos were gods. Humans thought the ocean had a god. Humans thought that  lightening had a god. And the gods of Abraham do not get a pass from me just because you don't like my blasphemy.

I used to cry when my mom said "grow up". But now I know what she was trying to do. She was trying to get me to think before I spoke or think before I did something.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
freeminer

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" Thomas Jefferson.

which bit didn't he understand do you suppose?

 

Quote:
Which is more important to you? The truth,

define truth.

Quote:
or protecting your superstition

unsubstantiated presupposition 

Quote:
because you get offended?

what evidence do you have that I was offended? I merely pointed out the objective fact that his comment was ad hominem........it was. I expect this sort of thing from atheists.

 

Quote:
Here is what you are stupidly doing.

inference of stupidity?.........further ad hominem? You guys just can't help yourselves. If you think an assertion is irrational just demonstrate it.

Quote:
You are merely reacting to the cognitive dissonance we have fostered in you. Instead of bitching about our word choice, take a look at your own claims and try to understand WHY we reject your claims.

 Are you sure YOU know why you reject my claims?

Quote:
If you can, you'll understand that you do no differently than we do when you reject the pet gods of other labels.

I reject the pet gods of other labels for their overt irrationality and on grounds of personal knowledge. I reject atheism for the same reasons.

Quote:
The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more pet deity than you do. When you understand why you reject all other claims besides your own, you will understand why we ridicule and blaspheme your claims as well.

ridicule indicates intellectual poverty. Blasphemy indicates spiritual poverty.

Quote:
We are not going to sugar coat what we think of ALL invisible friend claims, past and present, from volcano gods to the gods of Abraham. Invisible friends are merely human inventions and are just as ridiculous as the tooth fairy and Santa.

get over the idea that I'm offended, I'm well aware that atheists can't help being offensive.........it's a spiritual issue. Btw.don't you ever tire of churning out all those atheist mantras?...........fairies, invisible friends.........all that nonsense?

 

 

 

 

 

1. As a Deist, it is likely that Jefferson didn't understand the "revealed truth" of Scripture. Doesn't that mean that God did a shoddy job of revelation?

2. Support your assertion and let is determine its rationality. Until then, your lack of support for it makes me question your rationality.

3. How are the gods you reject more irrational than the one we ad to your list (aka yours)? Is it simply because you had a positive personal experience that you choose to attribute to it (deservedly so or not)?

4. Ridicule indicates intellectual poverty. You brought an intellectual poor position and it got ridiculed. Step up your game.

5. Do you get tired of saying "all invisible friends don't exist except for mine"?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ncole1
Posts: 4
Joined: 2011-11-19
User is offlineOffline
The incoherence of Christian salvation doctrine

It seems quite clear from Paul's letter to the Romans that the basic idea is, the wages of sin is death, and thus if sin can be nullified, so can death. However, the basis for this is disproven by modern science. Death is a result of injury and disease, not sin. When an autopsy is done, we find that mundane, natural causes are responsible for a death. Additionally, if "sin" is responsible for death, we wouldn't expect anencepahlic babies to die, OR we wouldn't expect death to have existed as long as life has (depending on whether you interpet "sin" as an individual act or as a collective "fallen" state) both of which all the massive heaps of scientific evidence are in direct opposition to this dogma. If the doctrine is provably wrong on the nature of the problem, why should we accept its claim to a solution?

If OTOH "death" means "spiritual death", why should anyone care? There is no observable manifestation of this, being "spiritually dead" feels exactly the same as being "spiritually alive", and it doesn't interfere with one's ability to do anything whatsoever. I have no more reason to care about that than about my invisible, unaccessible, unobservable, bank account losing all its money... 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13758
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
jcgadfly wrote:freeminer

Jefferson did understand, which is why he rejected what he rightfully saw as bullshit magic. I bet if he were alive today he'd love our scientific advancement and most likely would give up on his deism as well.

Where did I say I believed in a god, I am an atheist, please stop projecting your fantasy on me.

No, ridicule is what a rational person does when they hear bullshit. Just like it would be rational to say "bullshit" if someone claimed that the sun rotated around the earth. The sun does not rotate around the earth so making fun of such an absurd claim is especially appropriate because to allow the sale of such is to dumb down society.

I get tired of ANYONE claiming that their Santa for adults exist. Invisible friends make sense for kids imaginations, but once you grow up, if you still have one and call it god, you need to grow up.

You have no evidence for your magical super hero. No human of any label, past or present has or has had evidence for their fictional super heros. Your pet deity is no different to me than any other claimed in human hstory. I think it simply frightens you to hear the truth that there was never a god and will never be a god.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ncole1 wrote:It seems quite

ncole1 wrote:

It seems quite clear from Paul's letter to the Romans that the basic idea is, the wages of sin is death, and thus if sin can be nullified, so can death. However, the basis for this is disproven by modern science. Death is a result of injury and disease, not sin. When an autopsy is done, we find that mundane, natural causes are responsible for a death. Additionally, if "sin" is responsible for death, we wouldn't expect anencepahlic babies to die, OR we wouldn't expect death to have existed as long as life has (depending on whether you interpet "sin" as an individual act or as a collective "fallen" state) both of which all the massive heaps of scientific evidence are in direct opposition to this dogma. If the doctrine is provably wrong on the nature of the problem, why should we accept its claim to a solution?

If OTOH "death" means "spiritual death", why should anyone care? There is no observable manifestation of this, being "spiritually dead" feels exactly the same as being "spiritually alive", and it doesn't interfere with one's ability to do anything whatsoever. I have no more reason to care about that than about my invisible, unaccessible, unobservable, bank account losing all its money... 

 

Paul nullified sin for his followers as soon as he claimed that they were under grace and not under the law.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13758
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:get over the idea that

Quote:
get over the idea that I'm offended, I'm well aware that atheists can't help being offensive.........it's a spiritual issue. Btw.don't you ever tire of churning out all those atheist mantras?...........fairies, invisible friends.........all that nonsense?

Yea, you're used to us being offensive. Yea, but when the trend is that fewer and fewer people buy your fictional friend, you wont be a gracious loser and admit you got it wrong. So thanks for your childish condescending attitude. This is not an argument, merely more complaining pretending it isn't.

And yes the claim of a thinking being with no brain, no material, no neurons, is as it should be in the same category as fairies and Super man and Harry Potter.  Don't feel bad, you're not the only one who makes this bullshit claim. You simply have a different name you call your warm fuzzy anthropomorphic self projection.

Some give their super hero the name of Allah. Some claim their super hero is Vishnu. Others have looked up into the sky and thought the sun was a god who saved them. Same shit, different color, different name. Same empty box.

All any god/deity/entity/super natural claim requires is to swallow it first and then make shit up afterwords to prop it up. It makes for great comic books and action movies, but it makes lousy politics and morals.

You have an empty box. You are not the only person who claims their box is not empty and you are not the only human with a pet god. But your box is empty just like all the rest. Pretty bows wont change that.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Your comment contained an implicit threat.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

 Only a total wanker would make the statement you make above.

 

 

setting aside the limp ad hominem, what kind of impoverished mental process leads you to conclude that demonstrating your own depravity does you any intellectual credit?........I won't include moral credit since obviously you have no concept.

 

And that makes you a morally inconsistent arse, Freeminer. Only a bigoted monotheist could rationalise your behaviour as acceptable - this relishing of the idea of judgment/torture of other sentient beings. Like most christians you only have pre-conventional morality at your disposal and you've yet to develop a sense of empathy. That's sad and troubling. Perhaps if you removed yourself from the centre of the universe you might be able to feel the pain of other people?

I'm uncertain how some one like you whose belief is totally informed by unsupported appeals to complexity would be capable of judging another person's intellectual credit. In any case, the point is this. Don't dish up your vile religious threats on these boards Freeminer, or I will tell you to fuck off.  

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

 

God communicates primarily through his word. The Christian does not need to go around 'working at' confirming God's existence to himself. He lives with an awareness of his presence. Yes, that is psychological, ie. it is 'of' the soul, but to say that it is ONLY psychological is mere reductionism. 

 

 

Quote:
All the evidence suggests man wrote the bible.

 by your own admission, you don't HAVE all the evidence. However, even from the position of the unregenerate this is a highly irrational assertion. 

Quote:
The christian cannot define god much less confirm its existence.

by definition, the christian has ALREADY confirmed God's existence. With regard to definition, the scriptures give adequate information. 

Quote:
Psychological things are not 'of the soul'. They are of the mind.

you couldn't even define "mind". 

Quote:
Atheists do not follow scientism.

yes they do. 

Quote:
We favour testable explanations because they are the best way we have found to understand things without bias.

 the "God" explanation is perfectly testable, you merely seek an excuse not to test it. Everyone is biased.

Quote:
Things that are untestable are recognised as such.

obviously not.  For example, the fact that the age of the universe is untestable is blithely ignored in all the wild proclamations of pseudo-science.

Quote:
You, Freeminer, are the one insisting on absolute knowledge, on a paradoxically supernatural source of your 'objectivity'.

you're already contradicting yourself.........you've just claimed, "understanding without bias".[

Quote:
It's not true that hypotheses that are unproven are taken by empiricists on faith.

empiricists have a worldview; it is based on unproven hypotheses; ergo it is held by faith. 

Quote:
Theories and hypotheses are constantly being challenged and re-made on the basis of new data.

how do you determine what constitutes "data"? You have no more basis for determining what constiitutes data than you have for determining which "data" should impinge upon your worldview. Thus your bias dominates your thinking and not for empirical reasons as you like to imply but for purely emotional ones. That is why atheists are always so angry.......and sad.   

Quote:
No one here but theists will insist there is a way to be absolutely sure of a thing.

well, think about it........there may be a good reason! 

Quote:
Most deliciously, your christian certainties tend to revolve around implicit knowledge of the mind of god. Of a personal relationship you imagine with a 'holy spirit'.

do you see how quickly any claim to empiricism breaks down? You attribute "imagination" to me regarding a phenomenon of which, by your own admission, you have no experience. Atheists just can't help themselves. 

Quote:
Congratulations on giving JF a lesson in gold-plated wishful thinking. 

he already admitted to having that........what he needed was a grounding in rationality.

 

 

* Man did write the bible. Show me a single instance of written language not formulated by man and you might attract my attention. You might argue god influenced the authors but this cannot be proved true. 

* The definition of god in the bible is inadequate and cannot be measured in any way. Please define god using concepts that can be entirely comprehended by human brains or admit your definition is an unsupported hypothesis. 

* The challenges of establishing the nature of human consciousness/mind notwithstanding, empirical evidence shows human brains are the seat of consciousness and that concepts of soul derive from human brains. 

* Please define the concept of 'soul' in your own special words. Don't just say 'immaterial mind' or 'it's in the bible'.  What is a soul, Freeminer?   

* Scientism? We respect testable explanations but know they do not guarantee certainty. There's no doctrine. No worship. No prayers. You don't follow empiricism tho' do you? When the fuel gauge on your car points to empty you just assume it's still full. 

* Please outline your testable explanation for a god without employing subjective personal experience that could equally well be ascribed to confirmation bias and the power of suggestion. 

* Now science is pseudo-science? I love your system of labeling. What method of testing did you deploy to establish that the hypothesised age of the universe was incorrect? Was it assertion? That's the easiest way to be certain

* Finally, you insist again that you know the absolute truth on the basis of no actual proof and you appeal to complexity - brain/mind is soul/immaterial/supernatural and this underpins everything and exists before empiricism. If you are correct, why do babies not pop out of the womb with a full head of knowledge? Why do they spend their first years crawling around establishing comprehension of balance and space and matter, and a system of general rules they then apply to the material world as well as the projected world of the 'supernatural'? Why don't you see that brains and their interaction with the environment are sufficient to explain the nature of mind? Of course, you could just define what you mean by mind and outline your proposed tests and we could see if you are right. Or perhaps, like every epistemologist, you are just appealing to complexity...

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
freeminer wrote:you were

freeminer wrote:
you were about to deny it? Please don't be that lame.

If 'lame' is denying the same fallacy that's been presented to me one billion times, then I am indeed extremely lame.

P1 - DNA is a code.

P2- All codes had an intelligent creator.

Conclusion - DNA had an intelligent creator.

Without even worrying about semantics, you included DNA as a code in P1, so P2 is unjustified unless you provide evidence that DNA had an intelligent creator.

Or, you can try the nearly identical and equally fallacious:

P1 - All codes had an intelligent creator.

P2 - DNA is a code.

Conclusion - DNA had an intelligent creator.

Here, similarly, you're not justified in asserting that DNA is a code in P2 without providing evidence that it had a creator since you already asserted that all codes had an intelligent creator.

I'm sure this has already been explained to you many many times before. You just block your ears and parrot the same points until you start to lose confidence; then, you escape for "spiritual refreshment" for a while. Btw, assuming that you didn't misspoke when you said that, it's cognitive dissonance because it's essentially an implicit admittance that Christians will lose confidence in their beliefs if they discuss issues with nonbelievers without constantly escaping to a sea of Christians.    

freeminer wrote:
The commonality of Christian experience is the work of the Holy Spirit.

I was explaining how taking a "step of faith" in order to receive personal evidence for Christianity is different from scientific experimentation. Asserting that their personal evidence is not subjective because the Holy Spirit is objective is plain question begging. You are not even paying attention to what I'm saying.

freeminer wrote:
The atheist has no source of objectivity.

There is no "atheist" source of objectivity. We use the same objective measure that everyone uses: observable reality.

freeminer wrote:
this is a bold claim coming from one outside the spiritual epistemological system! It is God's business to communicate to his people that which he wishes to communicate, not for me to simply go around attributing things to him. Jesus said, "my sheep know my voice". We learn to do so. It's a matter of experience and spiritual maturity.

I'm just using reason and talking about psychology; I couldn't care less about your spiritual anything. Once again, you're simply question begging. How can you know an event is really a message from God or you're putting false meaning into some interesting event? You can't. You can only assume that God has everything under control. But, that's not even the most interesting part. If there is no god, people could simply be believing in a god that doesn't exist, then putting meaning into events and attributing it to that imaginary god.

Even if I can't convince you to honestly question Christianity, I don't see how you can disagree that this observation and the other psychological biases I described would often accurately describe the experiences of individuals in other religions. The point is, from an outsider's perspective, you can't tell the difference. 

freeminer wrote:
see above. God communicates primarily through his word. The Christian does not need to go around 'working at' confirming God's existence to himself. He lives with an awareness of his presence. Yes, that is psychological, ie. it is 'of' the soul, but to say that it is ONLY psychological is mere reductionism.

Yes, I know that is what you believe, but it is not evidence, and it is not a response to what I have written. An atheist can just say: "No, the Christian must work at convincing themselves of their god's existence because there is no god." And we would be right back where we started.

You are not discerning between actual arguments and mere contradiction.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:you were about to deny

Quote:
you were about to deny it? Please don't be that lame.

Quote:
If 'lame' is denying the same fallacy that's been presented to me one billion times, then I am indeed extremely lame.

how irrational of you! Please explain how a truism becomes UNTRUE based on the number of times it's presented to you.

 

Quote:
P1 - DNA is a code.

P2- All codes had an intelligent creator.

Conclusion - DNA had an intelligent creator.

Without even worrying about semantics, you included DNA as a code in P1, so P2 is unjustified unless you provide evidence that DNA had an intelligent creator.

Or, you can try the nearly identical and equally fallacious:

P1 - All codes had an intelligent creator.

P2 - DNA is a code.

Conclusion - DNA had an intelligent creator.

well here's news for you!...........this is how scientific hypotheses work! Aspirin cured my headache last week, it cured my headache today. If I had to prove EVERY aspirin would cure my headache rather than kill me I wouldn't risk taking it.

 

Quote:
Here, similarly, you're not justified in asserting that DNA is a code in P2 without providing evidence that it had a creator since you already asserted that all codes had an intelligent creator.

DNA corresponds with Shannon's definition of a coded information system. In fact it more than does so, since, as Werner Gitt has pointed out, Shannon's theory has serious defects.

I quote from Martin Irvine:

"A code is a learned rule for linking signs to their meanings. The term is used in various ways in media studies and semiotics. In communication studies, a message is often described as being "encoded" from the sender and then "decoded" by the receiver."

"The important point is to see all this meaning-making and symbolic activity as rule-governed, learned, and constructed as opposed to natural or given in reality."

ie. it is a matter of empirical observation and accepted by information theory that all codes have a codifier. Thus the point conforms to the norms of scientific acceptation. Thus to adopt a position of denial is irrational in the face of the evidence.

which renders this:

Quote:
I'm sure this has already been explained to you many many times before. You just block your ears and parrot the same points until you start to lose confidence; then, you escape for "spiritual refreshment" for a while.

almost undertandable!! 

Quote:
Btw, assuming that you didn't misspoke when you said that, it's cognitive dissonance because it's essentially an implicit admittance that Christians will lose confidence in their beliefs if they discuss issues with nonbelievers without constantly escaping to a sea of Christians.

I didn't say it was cognitive dissonance.........please pay attention.   

Quote:
The commonality of Christian experience is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Quote:
I was explaining how taking a "step of faith" in order to receive personal evidence for Christianity is different from scientific experimentation.

it isn't. We form a basis for conjecture on the available evidence and test it. 

Quote:
Asserting that their personal evidence is not subjective because the Holy Spirit is objective is plain question begging. You are not even paying attention to what I'm saying.

All knowledge is held subjectively. The difference for the Christian is that he has a philosophically watertight case to a claim of objectivity since he is the only one with an infinite absolute external reference point and internal confirmation of it ie. the objectivity is not inherent to him.

 

Quote:
The atheist has no source of objectivity.

Quote:
There is no "atheist" source of objectivity.

I didn't say there is. I said the atheist doesn't have one. 

Quote:
We use the same objective measure that everyone uses: observable reality.

you cannot define "reality". Furthermore any psychologist would disagree with you.........furthermore, so would any scientist who isn't still living in the '50's.

Quote:
this is a bold claim coming from one outside the spiritual epistemological system! It is God's business to communicate to his people that which he wishes to communicate, not for me to simply go around attributing things to him. Jesus said, "my sheep know my voice". We learn to do so. It's a matter of experience and spiritual maturity.

Quote:
I'm just using reason and talking about psychology;

well, both your "reason" and your "psychology" are looking pretty shakey. The atheist presupposes reason. He has no external reference point by which to know what it is. 

Quote:
I couldn't care less about your spiritual anything.

this is true. It's because you're spiritually dead and therefore only take account of a small part of life.  

Quote:
Once again, you're simply question begging. How can you know an event is really a message from God or you're putting false meaning into some interesting event? You can't.

again, you make the mistake of presupposing that Christians go around interpreting events as 'goddidit' in order to convince themselves of his existence and interest in them. They don't. They are well aware of both. If he needs to communicate something specific beyond this it is his business to do so, not mine to go looking 

 

Quote:
You can only assume that God has everything under control.

but this is a straightforward matter of revelation rather than assumption. eg. we have climate change but the presumption that Man controls the weather is just hubris.

Quote:
But, that's not even the most interesting part. If there is no god, people could simply be believing in a god that doesn't exist, then putting meaning into events and attributing it to that imaginary god.

of course this is true. Millions of people put faith in false gods. That's why it's nonsense to define an atheist as one who doesn't believe in the existence of gods.....it just belies extreme ignorance! But it is irrational to claim that because of their existence, ergo the God of the Bible is false. The question is ultimately, as we've said, one of personal epistemology. The question to you is, can you countenance the possibility of an epistemological shift, such that you come to know things you don't know at present?..........that is the crunch point at which atheists struggle with christians. They presume it is merely a psychological self-construct.

 

Quote:
Even if I can't convince you to honestly question Christianity, I don't see how you can disagree that this observation and the other psychological biases I described would often accurately describe the experiences of individuals in other religions. The point is, from an outsider's perspective, you can't tell the difference. 

ok, apart from the fact that I see a spiritually deceptive element in other religions, I assess them much as I suspect you would ie. on grounds of evidence and rationality. Not only do I have no evidence that Granny will return as a tree-frog, I consider it highly irrational to presuppose it.

 

Quote:
see above. God communicates primarily through his word. The Christian does not need to go around 'working at' confirming God's existence to himself. He lives with an awareness of his presence. Yes, that is psychological, ie. it is 'of' the soul, but to say that it is ONLY psychological is mere reductionism.

Quote:
Yes, I know that is what you believe, but it is not evidence,

no, of course it isn't. It doesn't purport to be. 

Quote:
and it is not a response to what I have written.

well obviously it was.......but if it didn't answer the question you had in mind, you are more than welcome to point it out. 

Quote:
An atheist can just say: "No, the Christian must work at convincing themselves of their god's existence because there is no god." And we would be right back where we started.

yes of course he could but it would require him to base his position on two fundamental presuppositions for which he has no evidence, and atheists are always telling us how important evidence is to them!

Quote:
You are not discerning between actual arguments and mere contradiction.

if you mean that my posts so far have chiefly consisted of nailing the latter rather than putting the former, I think you are largely correct but, as an atheist, you should share my predilection for rigorous thinking. As long as an atheist presupposes  the irrationality of Christianity, there is no meaningful point of contact. 

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13758
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
freeminer wrote:Quote: Only

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

 Only a total wanker would make the statement you make above.

 

 

setting aside the limp ad hominem, what kind of impoverished mental process leads you to conclude that demonstrating your own depravity does you any intellectual credit?........I won't include moral credit since obviously you have no concept.

"Depravity" is the pathetic word you use when people don't buy your pet god. I hate to tell you this but our planet is full of "depraved" people. 7 billion and most buy other gods and not yours. So that means you think most of humanity are nothing but trash.

I think people with your selfish attitude that the word rotates around your pet god, are depraved. I think our species can do far better than your selfish attitude in thinking your god and your religion is the only one that matters on this planet. I don't see our species as trash. I see people like you being FUCKING STUPID in dividing humanity with tribal myth.

Grow the fuck up. The world does not revolve around you. No one is special, not me not you. There are just selfish idiots like you who think they are owed the world because of the label they claim.

The world is full of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and yes, us kitten barbecuers. GET THE FUCK USED TO IT. We do not owe you shit and you are not the only person on the face of the planet.

You are the only depraved fuck I see here.

"Mommy mommy, those people don't believe what I do." Welcome to reality asshole.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13758
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Now, if you don't want me

Now, if you don't want me calling you an asshole, then don't call us depraved merely because we don't buy your god claim.

If you think you are "above" all that, then stick to making your fucking arguments and stop bitching about our word choice. I have made it clear, and most here agree with me, that slapping your claims around is STRICTLY ABOUT YOUR CLAIMS. But as soon as you use words like "depraved" you are no longer debating, but merely projecting your own fucking insecurities on us by falsely trying to portray us as the bad guys.

We are just as capable of being good and decent as any other human. If you insist on painting us as evil merely because we don't buy your god claim, we will treat you like the asshole you are acting like. Grow the fuck up.

If you want to debate then debate. But you will not get away with your pathetic attempt to look down on us as if we are criminals.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: And that makes you a

Quote:

 

And that makes you a morally inconsistent arse, Freeminer.

I sympathise with your lack of self-control. It's part of the human condition but you don't HAVE to suffer it. 

Quote:
Only a bigoted monotheist could rationalise your behaviour as acceptable

this implies your possession of a moral code - it appears to have little imfluence on your character. Where did you get it? 

Quote:
- this relishing of the idea of judgment/torture of other sentient beings.

I see no evidence for this attribution. I thought you LIKED evidence! Feel free to quote me.  

Quote:
Like most christians you only have pre-conventional morality at your disposal and you've yet to develop a sense of empathy.

I await with some bemusement the exposition of your very own moral code. If I had no empathy I wouldn't be talking to you. 

Quote:
That's sad and troubling. Perhaps if you removed yourself from the centre of the universe you might be able to feel the pain of other people?

I do indeed feel your pain as expressed in all this anger, but do keep one eye on the irony meter.......it's atheism which holds to the autonomy of Man - I have a God!

Quote:
I'm uncertain how some one like you whose belief is totally informed by unsupported appeals to complexity

for someone espousing "support" you're very free with unsubstantiated assertions! I don't recall declaring what "informs my belief".

Quote:
would be capable of judging another person's intellectual credit.

well, this is how it works. Lack of self-control tends, as a matter of general observation, to evince an unwillingness or inability to self-reflect. Reflectivity tends to accompany a sufficient level of intelligence to contemplate the effects our behaviour may have on others or......as you were saying, empathy.  

Quote:
In any case, the point is this. Don't dish up your vile religious threats on these boards Freeminer, or I will tell you to fuck off.  

Yes, of course you will, but don't you think you may give the impression thereby that it's the best you can manage?!

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13758
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Now you are pathetically and

Now you are pathetically and falsely accusing atheists of lacking self control. And yet another childish attempt to paint atheists as lawless heathens who go around raping and murdering.

GROW THE FUCK UP! Otherwise we will treat you like the fucking asshole you are acting like.

I have been in debates with believers for 10 years now online. One thing most of them quickly learn is that they wont get away with the moral argument, and neither will you.

Drop it before you get your ass verbally handed to you.

If you want to make a case for your invisible friend, that we welcome that debate. What you will not get away with is trying to treat us like evil criminals.

We simply do not by your claims of your pet god, or any for that matter. We are not evil because we don't believe what you believe. Unless or until you accept that you are going to get treated the way you deserve to be treated. Act like a self centered selfish dick, and we will treat you like one.

Now, do you want to grow up? Or are you going to act like a bratty child because others are different than you?

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3679
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote: well, this

freeminer wrote:

 

well, this is how it works. Lack of self-control tends, as a matter of general observation, to evince an unwillingness or inability to self-reflect.

 

 

Inability to self reflect ?  Even psychopaths have the ability to self reflect, that's how they know that they're psychopaths, silly.  They're evil, not stupid.

 

freeminer wrote:
Reflectivity tends to accompany a sufficient level of intelligence to contemplate the effects our behaviour may have on others
   

 

   Psychopaths are experts at contemplating the effects that their "behaviour may have on others."   That's precisely what makes them so dangerous.

 

freeminer wrote:
or......as you were saying, empathy.  

 

  Empathy is not required.

"Most people are ass holes." Jesus of Nazareth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13758
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
freeminer wrote:Quote: And

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

 

And that makes you a morally inconsistent arse, Freeminer.

I sympathise with your lack of self-control. It's part of the human condition but you don't HAVE to suffer it. 

Quote:
Only a bigoted monotheist could rationalise your behaviour as acceptable

this implies your possession of a moral code - it appears to have little imfluence on your character. Where did you get it? 

Quote:
- this relishing of the idea of judgment/torture of other sentient beings.

I see no evidence for this attribution. I thought you LIKED evidence! Feel free to quote me.  

Quote:
Like most christians you only have pre-conventional morality at your disposal and you've yet to develop a sense of empathy.

I await with some bemusement the exposition of your very own moral code. If I had no empathy I wouldn't be talking to you. 

Quote:
That's sad and troubling. Perhaps if you removed yourself from the centre of the universe you might be able to feel the pain of other people?

I do indeed feel your pain as expressed in all this anger, but do keep one eye on the irony meter.......it's atheism which holds to the autonomy of Man - I have a God!

Quote:
I'm uncertain how some one like you whose belief is totally informed by unsupported appeals to complexity

for someone espousing "support" you're very free with unsubstantiated assertions! I don't recall declaring what "informs my belief".

Quote:
would be capable of judging another person's intellectual credit.

well, this is how it works. Lack of self-control tends, as a matter of general observation, to evince an unwillingness or inability to self-reflect. Reflectivity tends to accompany a sufficient level of intelligence to contemplate the effects our behaviour may have on others or......as you were saying, empathy.  

Quote:
In any case, the point is this. Don't dish up your vile religious threats on these boards Freeminer, or I will tell you to fuck off.  

Yes, of course you will, but don't you think you may give the impression thereby that it's the best you can manage?!

Actually there are mods here who can show you the door. They don't have to because you are hanging yourself with your own bigoted rope. "Fuck off" is a perfectly reasonable response to dickish comments like yours. We could do far worse to you, but we don't have to because your selfishness and childish view of atheist speaks for itself.

You came here to pat yourself on the back thinking you were fighting evil. You try to put us on display like zoo animals and then like an idot expect us not to respond to your comments.

Your problem is that you did not run into passive atheists. We really don't give a fuck what you think of us. We've heard it all before. What you will NOT get away with is thinking you can come in here and use words like "depraved" in describing us and expect us not to call BULLSHIT on it.

You are the one who needs to grow the fuck up. Debate is one thing, your selfish bigotry will not be tollerated here. We will simply expose you for the imature brat you are acting like. So keep it up, we don't mind putting idiots like you on display.

Now, debate us without the stupid comments about our morals. If you cant or wont do that, then you need to stop wasting your time here.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote: by your

freeminer wrote:
 by your own admission, you don't HAVE all the evidence.

Where's your evidence that proves the evidence which exists is questionable?

freeminer wrote:
However, even from the position of the unregenerate this is a highly irrational assertion. 

Until you supply the above required evidence you are in a state of self delusion.

freeminer wrote:
by definition, the christian has ALREADY confirmed God's existence.

By DEFINITION, the christian god cannot and does not exist in anything more than the imaginings of christians.

freeminer wrote:
With regard to definition, the scriptures give adequate information. 

The scriptures are merely a primitive artifact(s) created by man which proves nothing more than the ancient capacity for humans to use their imaginations.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:you couldn't

freeminer wrote:
you couldn't even define "mind".

The inability of humanity to achieve consensus on the definition of a made up collection of sounds pertaining to brain processes is irrelevant to the argument of a god.

Quote:
Atheists do not follow scientism.
freeminer wrote:
yes they do.
 

Ridiculous. There is no such thing.

freeminer wrote:
 the "God" explanation is perfectly testable,

Then why hasn't god been proven? I suspect you have no idea what testable means, else you'd be famous for knowing a valid test, and this site wouldn't exist.

freeminer wrote:
Everyone is biased.

So you admit you are biased and could have false conclusions?

freeminer wrote:
the fact that the age of the universe is untestable

That is not a fact. The age of the universe is testable. And as technology and our understanding improves, our ability to test the age will become even more refined.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:how do you

freeminer wrote:
how do you determine what constitutes "data"?

Unlike mind or life, data has a specific definition. That definition conveniently answers your question. I'll help you:

qualitative or quantitative attributes of a variable or set of variables. Data (plural of "datum") are typically the results of measurements and can be the basis of graphs, images, or observations of a set of variables. Data are often viewed as the lowest level of abstraction from which information and then knowledge are derived.

freeminer wrote:
You attribute "imagination" to me regarding a phenomenon of which, by your own admission, you have no experience.

Unless you can provide evidence which contradicts all the evidence which exists you are merely projecting your imagination into a being of your own design, based on your interpretations of a primitive belief system mired in ignorance.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Behold, Freeminer

 

freeminer wrote:

 

Most people hear the Gospel several times from different sources before being saved and if they're not, they can never claim not to have heard the truth......that gives God a basis for judgment!  

 

 

Here's the evidence that you gain morbid satisfaction from being the lickspittle of the biggest bully in town.  

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Freeminer's indubitable empirical proof

 

freeminer wrote:

If you are a Christian you WILL have evidence because the Holy Spirit will be revealing Christ to you and confirming your salvation to you. 

 

O sinners, hear ye the truth and repent. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ImAJesusFreak
Theist
Posts: 12
Joined: 2011-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Freeminer, you need to step

Freeminer, you need to step back and look at yourself instead of critizing me. I'm sorry everyone. I wasn't trying to start a fight and wasn't trying to get everyone mad. I apologize.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Don't be sorry JF

ImAJesusFreak wrote:

Freeminer, you need to step back and look at yourself instead of critizing me. I'm sorry everyone. I wasn't trying to start a fight and wasn't trying to get everyone mad. I apologize.

 

none of us are actually angry and we're not really fighting. Some of us are just appealing to vehemence among other things. There's no offence being taken by anyone here - and I hope not by you. I'm sure we all regret hijacking your thread to parade our more or less unsupported opinions about the real meaning of material existence.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: how do you determine

Quote:
how do you determine what constitutes "data"?

 

Quote:
Unlike mind or life, data has a specific definition. That definition conveniently answers your question. I'll help you: qualitative or quantitative attributes of a variable or set of variables. Data (plural of "datum&quotEye-wink are typically the results of measurements and can be the basis of graphs, images, or observations of a set of variables. Data are often viewed as the lowest level of abstraction from which information and then knowledge are derived.

thank you for that but I didn't say that atheists don't understand the definition of 'data', I said they have no way of knowing what CONSTITUTES data. See Hume.

Quote:
You attribute "imagination" to me regarding a phenomenon of which, by your own admission, you have no experience.

Quote:
Unless you can provide evidence

the confirmation comes upon an act of faith - no different from the faith you have in your own worldview. 

Quote:
which contradicts all the evidence which exists

we both have the same external facts. You think they are evidence which supports your worldview. I know they are evidence supporting mine.

Quote:
you are merely projecting your imagination into a being of your own design,

this is a very flattering notion but even Plato didn't come up with the Trinity! 

Quote:
based on your interpretations of a primitive belief system mired in ignorance.

this is just irrational guff isn't it. Firstly it evinces an ignorance of the qualities of early belief systems........even the American indians understood the need for a philosophy which contained diversity within a unity. Secondly it evinces an ignorance of the Old Testament in particular. What is "primitive" about a worldview which answers all the philosophical questions yours can't? 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


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


freeminer wrote:

you were about to deny it? Please don't be that lame.

butterbattle wrote:
If 'lame' is denying the same fallacy that's been presented to me one billion times, then I am indeed extremely lame.

how irrational of you!

No.

Claiming DNA is the 'signs of a mystery mind' is ad hoc. That's a fallacy.

freeminer wrote:
Please explain how a truism becomes UNTRUE based on the number of times it's presented to you.

Strawman.

He didn't claim that a truism can change to an untruism merely from repetition.

freeminer wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

P1 - DNA is a code.

P2- All codes had an intelligent creator.

Conclusion - DNA had an intelligent creator.

Without even worrying about semantics, you included DNA as a code in P1, so P2 is unjustified unless you provide evidence that DNA had an intelligent creator.

Or, you can try the nearly identical and equally fallacious:

P1 - All codes had an intelligent creator.

P2 - DNA is a code.

Conclusion - DNA had an intelligent creator.

well here's news for you!...........this is how scientific hypotheses work!

Strawman.

We see 'order', geometry and complex systems and sub systems virtually everywhere, occurring 'naturally'.

Invoking 'intelligence' is unjustified, which is why science persists. Science is about understanding the 'mechanics' of everything; ie: the forces at work.

It doesn't seek to uncover a 'mind'. That would be a confirmation bias, which is 'personal' bias.

Science is about removing human subjectivity and personal bias from observations and translate that into data, and store it into an archive. We mimic nature in that sense.

Theology is the practice of imbuing meaning into things, which is why it's not a science, but an art. Like poetry.

 

freeminer wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Here, similarly, you're not justified in asserting that DNA is a code in P2 without providing evidence that it had a creator since you already asserted that all codes had an intelligent creator.

DNA corresponds with Shannon's definition of a coded information system.

Sorry, you cannot just 'define' an intelligent designer into being the 'mind' responsible for something.

They tried to do that with lightning and Thor, Love and Cupid, Evil and Satan etc etc...

freeminer wrote:
The atheist has no source of objectivity.

False premise.

Objectivity is simply recognizing the distinction(s) between A and B.

This is why we don't mistake our fingers for food...

freeminer wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

And that makes you a morally inconsistent arse, Freeminer.

I _________________________________________________________________

You didn't show that his statement was false. You just did a song and dance.

freeminer wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
Only a bigoted monotheist could rationalise your behaviour as acceptable

this implies your possession of a moral code

False premise.

There was nothing implicity or explicitly stating what you ought/ought not do.

Once again, your lack of comprehension is what is apparent once again.

You never actually post arguments that refute the statements of others, you just keep asserting false premises, ad hoc claims, and strawmen.

 

freeminer wrote:
I await with some bemusement the exposition of your very own moral code.

Peoples' personal ethics are just that; personal.

Why the obsession with other peoples' personal ethics?

To see how they contrast to your own?

 

 

 

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: 5875
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Data is observed and

Data is observed and recorded information.

All possible DNA sequences can form by unguided chemical processes. Most of them will map to some protein sequences.

The relation between the sequences of bases in DNA and the proteins they 'code' for is chemical and directly functional, no element of the arbitrary that we find in human designed code.

If a particular DNA sequence causes the generation of more useful proteins, that contribute to the improved survival of the individual, it will tend to spread via natural selection, ie, evolution. No guiding intelligence required.

 

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


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Actually there are

 

Quote:
Actually there are mods here who can show you the door.

big deal!!!!........but it would be such an admission of failure wouldn't it?!! This is really funny........and very sad. It demonstrates what a large part of your existence hangs on RRS! Don't you think you should get out more?! I go away for a few months, come back and it's still the same little bunch riling at a God they don't believe exists, get a life!

Quote:
 They don't have to because you are hanging yourself with your own bigoted rope.

I know a rationalisation when I see it!  You see, things like "bigoted" and "selfish" don't really stick do they?

Quote:
"Fuck off" is a perfectly reasonable response to dickish comments like yours.

whether it's "reasonable" is debatable.......that it's predictable is certain. 

Quote:
We could do far worse to you,

ooooh scary!.........for goodness sake, you really are on another planet aren't you? 

Quote:
but we don't have to because your selfishness and childish view of atheist speaks for itself.

if I were selfish I wouldn't be wasting time sharing the truth with you. I'm not responsible for your eternal welfare.......unfortunately, you have no sense of responsibility for it either. The fact that you deem the advocation of self-control to be "childish" says everything.

Quote:
You came here to pat yourself on the back thinking you were fighting evil.

if you're going to critisize Christianity, fine but do try to understand some basic things about it first. There are no housepoints here for me. 

Quote:
You try to put us on display like zoo animals

you put yourselves on display..........you enthusiastically advertise the puerile presuppositions of atheism while simultaneously claiming rationality.......it would be funny were it not so sad. 

Quote:
and then like an idot expect us not to respond to your comments.

What evidence do you have of my "expectations"? As it is, I would be very surprised if I hadn't got an enraged reaction

Quote:
Your problem is that you did not run into passive atheists. We really don't give a fuck what you think of us.

you have a special talent for putting totally contradictory claims together. If you REALLY didn't "give a fuck", you WOULD be passive! Personally, I've met all sorts of atheists. Most are trolls; now and again you get one who can cobble some sort of argument together. At present you're not doing so well. 

Quote:
We've heard it all before. What you will NOT get away with is thinking you can come in here and use words like "depraved" in describing us and expect us not to call BULLSHIT on it.

do so by all means, this is the Age of Grace - God gives you that freedom. What you don't understand is that your lack of control simply confirms everything the Bible says about unregenerate human nature. You seem to believe that cursing me will change something.........you actually don't see it as a meaningless, irrational, infantile tantrum.

Quote:
You are the one who needs to grow the fuck up.

you think this because you believe that lack of control is "adult". Like porn is "adult" literature. You can't see it as the precise inversion of the truth it actually is....it's what spiritual blindness does. 

Quote:
Debate is one thing, your selfish bigotry will not be tollerated here.

yes, debate is "one thing". Can you manage it? The trouble is, your fox is already shot, you claim not to care while exuding rage!!!! Actually, from your standpoint, I don't see why you SHOULD care. After all, atheism doesn't have a basis for morality; why SHOULDN'T you be depraved? The fact that you're a bit annoyed is actually encouraging because it suggests you have moral aspirations, even if you can't say WHY.

 

Quote:
We will simply expose you for the imature brat you are acting like. So keep it up, we don't mind putting idiots like you on display.

ok, I can understand this ambition of yours........but shooting yourself in the foot ain't the best start.

Quote:
Now, debate us without the stupid comments about our morals. If you cant or wont do that, then you need to stop wasting your time here.

I'm grateful for your concern for my time - yes I should be working, but it's my problem. It's interesting that you want to exclude morality from the conversation.......now what does that tell us?!

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13758
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
freeminer

freeminer wrote:

 

Quote:
Actually there are mods here who can show you the door.

big deal!!!!........but it would be such an admission of failure wouldn't it?!! This is really funny........and very sad. It demonstrates what a large part of your existence hangs on RRS! Don't you think you should get out more?! I go away for a few months, come back and it's still the same little bunch riling at a God they don't believe exists, get a life!

Quote:
 They don't have to because you are hanging yourself with your own bigoted rope.

I know a rationalisation when I see it!  You see, things like "bigoted" and "selfish" don't really stick do they?

Quote:
"Fuck off" is a perfectly reasonable response to dickish comments like yours.

whether it's "reasonable" is debatable.......that it's predictable is certain. 

Quote:
We could do far worse to you,

ooooh scary!.........for goodness sake, you really are on another planet aren't you? 

Quote:
but we don't have to because your selfishness and childish view of atheist speaks for itself.

if I were selfish I wouldn't be wasting time sharing the truth with you. I'm not responsible for your eternal welfare.......unfortunately, you have no sense of responsibility for it either. The fact that you deem the advocation of self-control to be "childish" says everything.

Quote:
You came here to pat yourself on the back thinking you were fighting evil.

if you're going to critisize Christianity, fine but do try to understand some basic things about it first. There are no housepoints here for me. 

Quote:
You try to put us on display like zoo animals

you put yourselves on display..........you enthusiastically advertise the puerile presuppositions of atheism while simultaneously claiming rationality.......it would be funny were it not so sad. 

Quote:
and then like an idot expect us not to respond to your comments.

What evidence do you have of my "expectations"? As it is, I would be very surprised if I hadn't got an enraged reaction

Quote:
Your problem is that you did not run into passive atheists. We really don't give a fuck what you think of us.

you have a special talent for putting totally contradictory claims together. If you REALLY didn't "give a fuck", you WOULD be passive! Personally, I've met all sorts of atheists. Most are trolls; now and again you get one who can cobble some sort of argument together. At present you're not doing so well. 

Quote:
We've heard it all before. What you will NOT get away with is thinking you can come in here and use words like "depraved" in describing us and expect us not to call BULLSHIT on it.

do so by all means, this is the Age of Grace - God gives you that freedom. What you don't understand is that your lack of control simply confirms everything the Bible says about unregenerate human nature. You seem to believe that cursing me will change something.........you actually don't see it as a meaningless, irrational, infantile tantrum.

Quote:
You are the one who needs to grow the fuck up.

you think this because you believe that lack of control is "adult". Like porn is "adult" literature. You can't see it as the precise inversion of the truth it actually is....it's what spiritual blindness does. 

Quote:
Debate is one thing, your selfish bigotry will not be tollerated here.

yes, debate is "one thing". Can you manage it? The trouble is, your fox is already shot, you claim not to care while exuding rage!!!! Actually, from your standpoint, I don't see why you SHOULD care. After all, atheism doesn't have a basis for morality; why SHOULDN'T you be depraved? The fact that you're a bit annoyed is actually encouraging because it suggests you have moral aspirations, even if you can't say WHY.

 

Quote:
We will simply expose you for the imature brat you are acting like. So keep it up, we don't mind putting idiots like you on display.

ok, I can understand this ambition of yours........but shooting yourself in the foot ain't the best start.

Quote:
Now, debate us without the stupid comments about our morals. If you cant or wont do that, then you need to stop wasting your time here.

I'm grateful for your concern for my time - yes I should be working, but it's my problem. It's interesting that you want to exclude morality from the conversation.......now what does that tell us?!

Nothing you have said here is different than anything you have said before. We are not interested in your condescending  psychobabble. We do not need your fictional sky daddy. I am sorry that bothers you.

You are not debating you are preaching. That is not going to get you anywhere repeating yourself.

My "rage" , is at your stupid claims and condescending attitude. Lose it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:No.is "no" an

Quote:

No.

is "no" an argument? Deeming a proposition to be false on the basis of the number of times it's been presented to you is, objectively, irrational.

Quote:
Claiming DNA is the 'signs of a mystery mind' is ad hoc. That's a fallacy.

obviously, the fact that extant codes ALWAYS indicate a codifier, renders it anything BUT "ad hoc. "Fallacy" is not an argument.

Quote:
Please explain how a truism becomes UNTRUE based on the number of times it's presented to you.

Quote:
Strawman.

He didn't claim that a truism can change to an untruism merely from repetition.

I challenge you to suggest an alternative inference.

Quote:

Strawman

We see 'order', geometry and complex systems and sub systems virtually everywhere, occurring 'naturally'.

no we don't, you merely PRESUPPOSE that they occur "naturally".

Quote:
Invoking 'intelligence' is unjustified,

since, empirically, codes don't exist without it, clearly not. 

Quote:
which is why science persists.

science "persists" among those who believe that invoking intelligence is justified....and historically, to a large extent. 

Quote:
Science is about understanding the 'mechanics' of everything; ie: the forces at work.

this is correct. God is a force at work.

Quote:
It doesn't seek to uncover a 'mind'.

but when it does so,, it should be honest about it. 

Quote:
That would be a confirmation bias, which is 'personal' bias.

all bias is "personal" bias.

 

Quote:
Science is about removing human subjectivity and personal bias from observations and translate that into data,

it can't, the best it can do is approximate. Many attempts leave a great deal to be desired, particularly in the treatment of hypotheses as 'facts'.

Quote:
Theology is the practice of imbuing meaning into things, which is why it's not a science, but an art. Like poetry.

the question is whether when the Bible deals with issues which science also deals with........is it true or not.

 

Quote:
Sorry, you cannot just 'define' an intelligent designer into being the 'mind' responsible for something.

why not?.......since this is the overwhelmingly rational, empirical conclusion?

Quote:
They tried to do that with lightning and Thor, Love and Cupid, Evil and Satan etc etc...

like you, I look for the rational evidence, it isn't rocket science.

freeminer wrote:
The atheist has no source of objectivity.

Quote:
False premise.

Objectivity is simply recognizing the distinction(s) between A and B.

well what you've defined here is the classical concept of truth. Those who held it understood that, since all belief is subjective, an external absolute source of truth was necessary in order for the concept of 'truth' to exist. It's interesting to see you come up with this definition since it hasn't prevailed since Hegel. Now EVERYTHING is relative. 

Quote:
This is why we don't mistake our fingers for food...

we just mistake everything for being solid!


Quote:

And that makes you a morally inconsistent arse, Freeminer.

I _________________________________________________________________

Quote:
You didn't show that his statement was false. You just did a song and dance.

Well, you lot are performing now! You misunderstand Christianity. It doesn't comprise claiming the moral highground for oneself but it does claim that one exists. It also believes in "buy the truth and sell it not"..........something which, in between telling atheists to leave their minds at the door, my Christian friend seems to have overlooked.

Quote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
Only a bigoted monotheist could rationalise your behaviour as acceptable

this implies your possession of a moral code

Quote:
False premise.

There was nothing implicity or explicitly stating what you ought/ought not do.

yes there was. It judged me as a "bigot", clearly implying, since behaviour disapproved of flowed from this, that I was 'wrong' to be one and should desist!

Quote:
Once again, your lack of comprehension is what is apparent once again.

comfort yourself with this thought.

Quote:
You never actually post arguments that refute the statements of others, you just keep asserting false premises, ad hoc claims, and strawmen.

I'm more than happy to substantiate my claims. To arrive at truth, you will need to substantiate some too. As Henly said, "how much do you want it?"

 

Quote:
I await with some bemusement the exposition of your very own moral code.

Quote:
Peoples' personal ethics are just that; personal.

ahaa!.......so is the rest of their worldview. So what business is other peoples' belief in God of RRS?

Quote:
Why the obsession with other peoples' personal ethics?

when called a "bigot" it's nice to know what standard one is being judged by........but also, atheists are forever declaiming about "objectivity" and truth" and I have the frequently confirmed suspicion they don't know what they're talking about!

Quote:
To see how they contrast to your own?
Quote:

that too.

 

 

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: No.is "no" an

 

 

Quote:

 

No.

is "no" an argument? Deeming a proposition to be false on the basis of the number of times it's been presented to you is, objectively, irrational.

Quote:
Claiming DNA is the 'signs of a mystery mind' is ad hoc. That's a fallacy.

obviously, the fact that extant codes ALWAYS indicate a codifier, renders it anything BUT "ad hoc. "Fallacy" is not an argument.

Quote:
Please explain how a truism becomes UNTRUE based on the number of times it's presented to you.

Quote:
Strawman.

He didn't claim that a truism can change to an untruism merely from repetition.

I challenge you to suggest an alternative inference.

Quote:

Strawman

We see 'order', geometry and complex systems and sub systems virtually everywhere, occurring 'naturally'.

no we don't, you merely PRESUPPOSE that they occur "naturally".

Quote:
Invoking 'intelligence' is unjustified,

since, empirically, codes don't exist without it, clearly not. 

Quote:
which is why science persists.

science "persists" among those who believe that invoking intelligence is justified....and historically, to a large extent. 

Quote:
Science is about understanding the 'mechanics' of everything; ie: the forces at work.

this is correct. God is a force at work.

Quote:
It doesn't seek to uncover a 'mind'.

but when it does so,, it should be honest about it. 

Quote:
That would be a confirmation bias, which is 'personal' bias.

all bias is "personal" bias.

 

Quote:
Science is about removing human subjectivity and personal bias from observations and translate that into data,

it can't, the best it can do is approximate. Many attempts leave a great deal to be desired, particularly in the treatment of hypotheses as 'facts'.

Quote:
Theology is the practice of imbuing meaning into things, which is why it's not a science, but an art. Like poetry.

the question is whether when the Bible deals with issues which science also deals with........is it true or not.

 

Quote:
Sorry, you cannot just 'define' an intelligent designer into being the 'mind' responsible for something.

why not?.......since this is the overwhelmingly rational, empirical conclusion?

Quote:
They tried to do that with lightning and Thor, Love and Cupid, Evil and Satan etc etc...

like you, I look for the rational evidence, it isn't rocket science.

freeminer wrote:
The atheist has no source of objectivity.

Quote:
False premise.

Objectivity is simply recognizing the distinction(s) between A and B.

well what you've defined here is the classical concept of truth. Those who held it understood that, since all belief is subjective, an external absolute source of truth was necessary in order for the concept of 'truth' to exist. It's interesting to see you come up with this definition since it hasn't prevailed since Hegel. Now EVERYTHING is relative. 

Quote:
This is why we don't mistake our fingers for food...

we just mistake everything for being solid!


Quote:

And that makes you a morally inconsistent arse, Freeminer.

I _________________________________________________________________

Quote:
You didn't show that his statement was false. You just did a song and dance.

Well, you lot are performing now! You misunderstand Christianity. It doesn't comprise claiming the moral highground for oneself but it does claim that one exists. It also believes in "buy the truth and sell it not"..........something which, in between telling atheists to leave their minds at the door, my Christian friend seems to have overlooked.

Quote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
Only a bigoted monotheist could rationalise your behaviour as acceptable

this implies your possession of a moral code

Quote:
False premise.

There was nothing implicity or explicitly stating what you ought/ought not do.

yes there was. It judged me as a "bigot", clearly implying, since behaviour disapproved of flowed from this, that I was 'wrong' to be one and should desist!

Quote:
Once again, your lack of comprehension is what is apparent once again.

comfort yourself with this thought.

Quote:
You never actually post arguments that refute the statements of others, you just keep asserting false premises, ad hoc claims, and strawmen.

I'm more than happy to substantiate my claims. To arrive at truth, you will need to substantiate some too. As Henly said, "how much do you want it?"

 

Quote:
I await with some bemusement the exposition of your very own moral code.

Quote:
Peoples' personal ethics are just that; personal.

ahaa!.......so is the rest of their worldview. So what business of RRS is other peoples' belief in God ?

Quote:
Why the obsession with other peoples' personal ethics?

when called a "bigot" it's nice to know what standard one is being judged by........but also, atheists are forever declaiming about "objectivity" and truth" and I have the frequently confirmed suspicion they don't know what they're talking about!

Quote:
To see how they contrast to your own?
Quote:

that too.

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13758
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:I'm more than happy to

Quote:
I'm more than happy to substantiate my claims. To arrive at truth, you will need to substantiate some too. As Henly said, "how much do you want it?"

So when are you going to start "substantiating" your claims. All you have been doing so far is try to pretend you are some sort of shrink trying to save lost puppies. Hardly impressive, or new.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote: I wouldn't

freeminer wrote:
I wouldn't be wasting time sharing the truth with you.

You're putting the cart before the horse, unless I missed it.

Can you show us a valid conclusion that your god exists?

'The bible says...' is not a sound premise, BTW.

freeminer wrote:
...you enthusiastically advertise the puerile presuppositions of atheism

Someone's personal conclusions aren't an 'ism'. They're merely a personal conclusion.

Everyone apart from you, isn't a 'Someonewhodisagreeswithallofuswhobelieveingodsist'.

freeminer wrote:
...you have a special talent for putting totally contradictory claims together.

Pot meet Kettle.

freeminer wrote:
this is the Age of Grace

Unsupported assertion.

Give us a sound argument for the existence of god first, then give us a sound argument with this 'this is the Age of Grace' thing as it's conclusion.

freeminer wrote:
God gives you that freedom.

Unsupported assertion.

Give us a sound argument for the existence of god first, then give us a sound argument with this 'God gives you freedom' thing as it's conclusion.

freeminer wrote:
...your lack of control simply confirms everything the Bible says

Post hoc fallacy.

It doesn't make the bible 'true', or what it says relevant.

freeminer wrote:
It's interesting that you want to exclude morality from the conversation.......now what does that tell us?!

It should tell you at the very least that the claims of Christians of objective morals is something they tend to claim, and that others simply aren't willing to grant their claims.

 

Now, do you actually have any sound arguments for the existence of your god?

Do you expect us to simply grant you things?

 

 

 

 

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:thank you

freeminer wrote:
thank you for that but I didn't say that atheists don't understand the definition of 'data', I said they have no way of knowing what CONSTITUTES data. See Hume.

The two are hand in hand. The definition of data explains what constitutes data. Which is effectively observation of the universe based on the axiom that we exist and can know the universe.
If you're attempting to say we can't know anything, then you discredit your own argument. Indeed, you discredit any and every argument that ever existed, including the practice of arguing altogether.

As for Hume, I have little interest in philosophy. It doesn't help explain the universe or that which is within, let alone anything that may be apart.

freeminer wrote:
the confirmation comes upon an act of faith - no different from the faith you have in your own worldview.

There is a difference in the definitions of faith that we use. I'm afraid I've never been able to use the faith that theists refer to.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Faith by my definition is

Faith by my definition is trust. I operate under the axioms that I exist, and that I can know things about me and my surroundings. In my experience, the best way to know if something is true or false is to test it. Something that cannot be tested has no observable impact on my existence, and is irrelevant. Something that can be tested can also be trusted to be true, should it pass the test. By reduction, the only way I could cease trusting my knowledge is if the basis of that knowledge were questioned. The only way that could happen would be by throwing my axioms away, and assuming the opposite of the observable. But if I don't exist, or can't know me and/or my surroundings, then there is no knowledge I can have, including knowledge of a god.

So there is a significant difference in the way we approach faith in a worldview.

freeminer wrote:
we both have the same external facts. You think they are evidence which supports your worldview. I know they are evidence supporting mine.

Naked assertion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:this is

freeminer wrote:
this is a very flattering notion but even Plato didn't come up with the Trinity!

If he had it would be called something else. Whoever invents a term gets to define and spell it their own way.

freeminer wrote:
What is "primitive" about a worldview which answers all the philosophical questions yours can't? 

The fact that it doesn't answer any testable questions, literal or philosophical, is evidence that it is useless. The fact that it is ancient and useless, and contains information considered primitive in its explanation of existence, suggests it is primitive. Extrapolating human history confirms that nothing within is unique or has anything which can further our understanding of the universe. "God" is merely an attempt to give explanation to events outside the understanding of the people. It's a gap filler that gets weaker with every gap science fills.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
 Why are you removing the

 

Why are you removing the identity from the person you are quoting in your responses? The software doesn't do that when you click on 'Quote'.

Is this some kind of tactic to make it more difficult to backtrack who you are responding to?

Interesting...

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

No.

is "no" an argument?

Rhetorical question.

It's a conclusion. Followed by the reasoning for it.

freeminer wrote:
Deeming a proposition to be false on the basis of the number of times it's been presented to you is, objectively, irrational.

Your allegation that anyone did that is false.

You have not proven it. You just keep repeating the allegation.

It's not going to work.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Claiming DNA is the 'signs of a mystery mind' is ad hoc. That's a fallacy.

obviously, the fact that extant codes ALWAYS indicate a codifier

Non sequitur. You are invoking a god. You are special pleading.

That's poetry, not science.

freeminer wrote:
"Fallacy" is not an argument.

Nobody claimed that.

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is an often plausible or seemingly plausible argument using false or invalid inference that can result in a misconception or presumption.

freeminer wrote:
Please explain how a truism becomes UNTRUE based on the number of times it's presented to you.

Quote:
Strawman.

He didn't claim that a truism can change to an untruism merely from repetition.

I challenge you to suggest an alternative inference.

It seems you agree with my statement.

Good.

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

Strawman

We see 'order', geometry and complex systems and sub systems virtually everywhere, occurring 'naturally'.

no we don't

You obviously see something I don't.

You could be mistaken.

freeminer wrote:
...you merely PRESUPPOSE that they occur "naturally".

No.

I concluded.

And I didn't 'merely' conclude.

Your hypebole and rhetoric is amusing, though...

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Invoking 'intelligence' is unjustified

since, empirically, codes don't exist without it, clearly not. 

I'm very clear in my statements. Paraphrasing me signals that you cannot grapple with my statements as they stand.

Either deal with my actual statements, concede, or just ignore them and make a statement or claim of your own.

It doesn't appear that you are able to defeat me, so your comments are meaningless to me and only of value to you and those who are at your level, and below...

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
which is why science persists.

science "persists" among those who believe that invoking intelligence is justified....and historically, to a large extent. 

Sure.

Their churches instruct them to get degrees and infiltrate academia so that they can attempt to 'invoke' their unsound and invalid assertions.

But they lose quite a few 'converts' in those attempts, when they're exposed to the evidence.

Now, reports are there are close, if not 1 billion atheists worldwide.

That's what's so funny.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Science is about understanding the 'mechanics' of everything; ie: the forces at work.

this is correct.

Then you understand what science does, and why theism relies on faith and old stories.

freeminer wrote:
God is a force at work.

Not everyone believes that.

Not everyone is willing to grant that, nor convince themselves to rely on faith and old stories.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
It doesn't seek to uncover a 'mind'.

but when it does... 

Why aren't your theists able to provide any evidence that their god actually exists; outside of their hopes and imaginations?

There's no evidence that we even have a 'soul' that occupies our body and lifts off after death, like the stories go.

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
That would be a confirmation bias, which is 'personal' bias.

all bias is "personal" bias.

Sure.

That's why we do science, and not poetry and theology.

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Science is about removing human subjectivity and personal bias from observations and translate that into data,

it can't

Then you're making a positive claim. I'm not willing to grant you that.

Argue it, if you wish to get us to agree that what you say is accurate.

freeminer wrote:

the best it can do is approximate.

Then you're making a positive claim. I'm not willing to grant you that.

Argue it, if you wish to get us to agree that what you say is accurate.

freeminer wrote:
Many attempts leave a great deal to be desired, particularly in the treatment of hypotheses as 'facts'.

Then you're making a positive claim. I'm not willing to grant you that.

Argue it, if you wish to get us to agree that what you say is accurate.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Theology is the practice of imbuing meaning into things, which is why it's not a science, but an art. Like poetry.

the question is whether when the Bible deals with issues which science also deals with........is it true or not.

I'm not willing to grant you that.

Sorry.

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Sorry, you cannot just 'define' an intelligent designer into being the 'mind' responsible for something.

why not?.......

Because it's not rational, or practical to do so.

freeminer wrote:
...since this is the overwhelmingly rational, empirical conclusion?

I don't know how you conclude that faith is rational...

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
They tried to do that with lightning and Thor, Love and Cupid, Evil and Satan etc etc...

like you, I look for the rational evidence

Theists don't have any.

They just have faith and stories.

freeminer wrote:
The atheist has no source of objectivity.

Quote:
False premise.

Objectivity is simply recognizing the distinction(s) between A and B.

well what you've defined here is the classical concept of truth.

No.

I concluded that you're wrong, using my definition of objectivity.

freeminer wrote:
EVERYTHING is relative. 

I think that too, relative to my perceptions.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
This is why we don't mistake our fingers for food...

we just mistake everything for being solid!

Speak for yourself.

I'm an engineer. I don't know why people would think that ignorantly.

freeminer wrote:
You misunderstand Christianity.

I don't think so.

It's a personal faith based on stories.

freeminer wrote:
It doesn't comprise claiming the moral highground for oneself but it does claim that one exists.

I'm skeptical of claims.

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
False premise.

There was nothing implicity or explicitly stating what you ought/ought not do.

yes there was.

No, there wasn't actually. He didn't imply or claim that you were 'wicked', or 'evil', or the contrary.

freeminer wrote:
It judged me as a "bigot"

He defined you as one.

You're playing semantics and using hyperbole to cast the aspersion that you are being persecuted by him.

Drama much?

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Once again, your lack of comprehension is what is apparent once again.

comfort yourself with this thought.

Sure.

I'm also amused everytime I knock down stupid arguments.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
You never actually post arguments that refute the statements of others, you just keep asserting false premises, ad hoc claims, and strawmen.

I'm more than happy to substantiate my claims.

Then back up and contend with the strawmen, non sequiturs and naked assertions I've circled for you.

 

You can't simply assert that a god exists, if your intention is to be intellectually honest, and not just come here to be obnoxious and preach, like every other theist I've come across on this forum.

freeminer wrote:

To arrive at truth, you will need to substantiate some too.

I don't have the burden of disproof, nor the burden of proof, for any and all god claims, or things that lurk, or go 'bump' in the night.

It gets annoying as all fuck to listen to the constant drone and finger pointing to personal views of 'sin' of superstitious Koolaid drinkers.

It's fucking obnoxious.

Do you not get that?

Would listening to Muslim's drone on about how their book is 'true' and how pure evil they think you are not fucking annoy the piss out of you?

Ever think about that?

freeminer wrote:
As Henly said, "how much do you want it?"

It should be clear that I don't care what you personally think or feel is evidence.

My goal is to educate others on how to think critically and be able to avoid drinking all the Koolaid that's out there.

 

freeminer wrote:
I await with some bemusement the exposition of your very own moral code.

Quote:
Peoples' personal ethics are just that; personal.

ahaa!.......so is the rest of their worldview.

Exactly.

freeminer wrote:
So what business of RRS is other peoples' belief in God ?

It's clearly spelled out.

Didn't you read it before you signed up here?

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Why the obsession with other peoples' personal ethics?

when called a "bigot" it's nice to know what standard one is being judged by

Usually, it's close to, if not the same as the dictionary definition.

IOW, their personal view of you.

freeminer wrote:
I have the frequently confirmed suspicion they don't know what they're talking about!

But you're being 'theological', not 'logical'.

They're not mutually inclusive, or interchangeable terms.

 

 

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: 5875
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The "codifier" of DNA

The "codifier" of DNA is the process of natural selection. The nature of the 'code' is such that there is a direct physical relationship between the sequence of each codon and the amino acid that it most readily bonds to. Given this fact, no 'conscious' coder is required.

It would be a very crude kind of 'code' in human terms, as if, say, the code for a given letter was simply the number corresponding to its position in the alphabet.

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Enjoyable posts

 

 

Red, et al. Not sure what Freeminer is going to come back with after that paddy-whacking...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
baka

Quote:
You can fight back and try to make reason all you want. I believe in God. I wish you guys would consider it.

I wish you could consider not believing. It's all about that when you come here.

ImAJesusFreak wrote:
Living with God and believing him makes your life amazing. Thats why i don't understand why people want to be without him. He has blessed my life so much and has brought me through so many hard times. And now i have the satisfaction of knowing that even after i die, He will bless me.

I despise drugs.