|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
HUGE collection of anti-atheist/agnostic/darwinist arguments.
Posted on: May 5, 2007 - 3:59pm
 Offline
HUGE collection of anti-atheist/agnostic/darwinist arguments.
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
Where would you like to start?
Answers for:
I read through the introduction and I can already tell you the description of a skeptic is wrong. If that is wrong, then it would be pretty safe to assume the rest of it is wrong.
As far as I read, their "scientific" arguments were all nonsense so what's left is biblical interpretation. They use the Cosmological Constant argument to "prove" design - I'd really like a good reply to this one.
I was amazed at the fact that they tried to justify the biblical atrocities, the problem of evil in the world, etc. And then there's:
They also mock Einstein: Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe.
Their view on "Who Created God? also deserves a good reply.
Oooo! You really dug into this! Gimme a bit to do my homework and we will discuss this at length - LOL It looks very interesting!
SF, where the heck did you find out about this site?
I've known all of these arguments for years, but this is the first time I have seen something approaching a library of arguments.
PS: The Cosmological Constant Argument is a derrivitive from the Privileged Planet Thesis. It is another Teleological argument, so while you can point out that using numbers to prove design is circular, it still is an emotionally swaying argument just by sheer numerical force (even though it isn't a true appeal to emotion.)
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
I first saw a video ( http://physicshead.blogspot.com/2007/05/what-we-still-dont-know.html ) that presented the Cosmological Constant's apparent fine tuning and I googled for more info. That's how I got here.
Their information on the CC is legit, and although it's the same old "argument from design", it's more of a challenge due to it's precise apparent fine-tuning (one part in 10 to the power 120?). In the video they explain it by using a "multiple-universes" scenario, but these guys reject it from the start (they even use Occam's Razor, LOL!)
LOL I have an avatar now.
I would also like an explaination for that quark-antiquark argument against the Big Bang, but that can wait.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
The first website was the Christian's best shot.
I think this is the Muslim's best shot:
http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_atheism.php
http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php
I say we take out two birds with one stone
The muslim's arguments aren't as sophisticated as the christian's arguments, but he is regarded as an intellectual in Turkey and dresses like a pimp ( http://www.harunyahya.com/theauthor.php )
LE: Let's just address the arguments from the first page, since Ken Miller already made fun of Harun Yaha here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5636631971168635709
Dang, whose lifetime project do you think this might be? That site's got a bazillion articles. I'm sure I could find counter-argument papers to a lot of them, if I took some time. But I certainly don't have the time/motivation to try to find counter-argument papers to them all.
www.caseagainstfaith.com
Huh? I've never heard any skeptic say that!
www.caseagainstfaith.com
So, are we supposed to use out feelings or what?
Evidence for God from Science
Debunking Dawkins
Welcome Godan!
We're glad you're here.
We'd love for you to introduce yourself and tell us a bit about yourself in the General Conversation, Introductions and Humor thread.
By the way, hang around the forums, read some of the threads and you'll see comments with specific types of arguments (such as teleological). Some members are quite versed in philosophy.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
LOL. Somebody has google alerts.
Unfortunately, they didn't read the news last year after the entry was modified on May 16.
In December of '06, Smoot and Mather won the Nobel Prize for their 'baby picture' of the universe using the background measures from the COBE satellite.
http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/Nobel/
By the way, Tonto might have missed the tent because his head was so full of GARBAGE that it clouded his reason.
And you should update your stem cell research category. While you were compiling last year's research, ten other things happened. Only one of which in the US. Your table 3 in the stem cell article ignores at least six other sources of viable stem cells and is inaccurate at best. Adult autologous stem cells have high price tags associated with them because they require surgery to extract and implant. DUH! Cadaverous stem cells are also expensive as per a friend at the University of Louisville. Apparently, corpses require a great deal of care.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I'm sorry, I don't really like philosophy. I'm more of a numbers person. As a scientist, I work with numbers all day. Numbers are your friend. Philosophy is something you do when you don't want to look at the numbers.
Evidence for God from Science
Debunking Dawkins
Don't have Google alerts. Another atheist assumption. Got it from site stats (80+ visitors from here). Thanks for the free advertising!
The list is the major categories of stem cells. Adult stem cells are already used to treat and cure dozens of diseases. The cost is relatively low, since it involves removal of bone marrow, which is a short, relatively simple procedure. It is much lower than cloning, which costs ~1,000/egg. This involves the use of dangerous drugs to induce hyper-ovulation and extraction. Of course, cloning has never worked in humans, and will probably be extremely inefficient if there is ever found a way to make it work. Hwang used ~2,000 eggs and ended up with zero clones. Yep, $2,000,000 for zip! The main problem with all allogeneic transplants is that the recipient needs to take anti-rejection drugs all their life. Autologous is clearly the medically-preferred method if it can be made to work. This (and the tumorigenic nature of ESC) is why emybryonic stem cells have never been transplanted into human patients. You should volunteer to be the first!
Evidence for God from Science
Debunking Dawkins
Oooooh! Someone's looking to stir things up!
I'll have you know that it's we philosophers who'll tell you what your numbers actually are and why your scientific method is actually worth anything!
On a more serious note, it's common misconception that philosophers just mess around with wishy washy theories that have no bearing on real life. Although I guess that's a kind of philosophy, the same way seeing how many storeys you have to drop a mouse from for it to splatter is kind of science, there's a more serious side to the discipline too. All the questions regarding God are philosophical, even the ones where science are involved.
(I'll bet that there's plenty of philosophical questions that you considered scientific, just because you didn't find them bizaare or silly.)