Some Questions for the RRS and anyone else who feels up to it - from a theist

IrishFarmer
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-07-28
User is offlineOffline
Some Questions for the RRS and anyone else who feels up to it - from a theist

Hey,

 

Brian, Kelly, since it appears you've completely dodged me on that talk we were supposed to have, I'll take your advice and post some questions here that I would have liked to discuss.

#1  You guys are evolutionists, since that's the only viable option for an atheist.  However, creationists are often derided for their lack of credentials, their lack of evidence, their weak arguments, their rejection by the mainstream, etc.

However, pretty much all of this fits the bill of the Christ Mythicist.  Its rejected by the mainstream, its not taught as fact in any public school, it relies on outdated, or uncredentialed "scholarship" and the arguments are either ignorant or weak.

 

Rook Hawkins, for instance, appears to have no foundation upon which to be speaking authoritatively for or against the historical existence of Jesus Christ.  It appears that such people (which would include characters like Acharya S as well) are the Kent Hovind of Jesus Mythicism.

 

That said, here's the question:  Don't you think its hypocritical - perhaps even irrational - to hold to evolution for the same reasons that one would then deny the Christ Myth theory?

 

#2  If you accept mainstream scientific theories, then existence (at least as far as we're concerned) began with the big bang.  How can you hold to an infinitely old universe (as a response to God not having to be created), based on this theory?

 

#3  If time began to exist at the big bang (at least according to Stephen Hawkings if there is something natural beyond the big bang it cannot have affected us, and we can get no information from it), then how do you explain the universe as an atheist?  For instance, if there is no space and time (no existence), then why existence?  From nothing, nothing comes.

 

#4  The logic you use to debate is immaterial, is a construct of the mind, transcends space and time, and is absolute.  Therefore, how does an atheist explain this without positing some kind of transcendant, absolute mind by which logic is bound?

 

#5  Why is the argument from evil still used by atheists?  It causes a paradox. If evil disproves God, then God does not exist, but then evil cannot exist and you therefore have no evil to put into the argument from evil.  Also, this causes you to have to defend the assertion of a universal negative:  There is no purpose or reason for evil that can be morally justified by God.  <-  How can you possibly know this?

 

#6  If you're an atheist because you lack a belief in God, then what seperates you from an agnostic?  If you lack a belief because you think its irrational to believe in God, then what seperates you from a strong (real) atheist?

 

#7  As an atheist, there are no objective morals.  Therefore, how can you ever criticize any occurance in the bible as evil?  If its only subjectively evil, then that's no more correct than saying its subjectively good.

 

I really wish we could have discussed topics like these - and more - over the phone, but what are you gonna do?


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
#1 Evolution isn't a

#1 Evolution isn't a default position, it's a well-supported scientific theory. You've presented a false dichotomy there. Creationism lacks evidence because it's not a based on evidence at all. It's a model of the world in search of justification. It's not a matter of popularity or authority. If creationism were argued by a respected biologist, he or she would still be expected to come up with evidence to support his case. If Rook outlines his position and sources in his book, his claims will be subject to scrutiny just like everything else. You're free to ignore him if you don't think he's got the breeding papers to do proper research, but that would be an ad hom.#2, #3 There are a lot of theories about the origins of the universe, but really, you're just setting up a god of the gaps with this one. It's not really necessary to have an explanation just to positively exclude the possibility of one deity or another. There's no evidence for a deity, period.
#4 Not this "problem of induction" shit again. Do a search for a rebuttal. I can't stomach it.#5 Neither exist. Both are just mythical concepts. There are things that are good and things that are bad. One act can be both if taken from different perspectives (i.e. the fisherman and the fish). Most people feel empathy for each other, and many for animals as well, and seek to reduce the suffering they perceive. Religion was probably invented to coerce the brutish and ignorant to behave themselves.
#6 There is such a term as "agnostic-atheist" or "weak atheist." That is, no positive claim is made, but it's safe to assume (all) deities are mythical until shown otherwise.#7 There are objective morals for nobody. "Evil" is meaningless as a facet of a "spiritual" argument, which is also meaningless. There are things that are unappealing, harmful to individuals, detrimental to society, that all normal humans innately object to on a basic emotional level. The "laws" of religions don't create morality: the "laws" are articulations of concepts that resonate with whoever wrote them. Which is why you also have information in your magic book on beating slaves and sending your daughter to be raped. There wasn't objective morality then (in the iron age), and there isn't now. In a world where stonings and genital mutilation are still justified by it, religion's probably not the best source for "objective" morality. The best we can do is act with compassion and humanity, both concepts which are constantly being refined by us non-sociopaths.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
IrishFarmer wrote: #2 If

IrishFarmer wrote:

#2 If you accept mainstream scientific theories, then existence (at least as far as we're concerned) began with the big bang. How can you hold to an infinitely old universe (as a response to God not having to be created), based on this theory?

 

#3 If time began to exist at the big bang (at least according to Stephen Hawkings if there is something natural beyond the big bang it cannot have affected us, and we can get no information from it), then how do you explain the universe as an atheist? For instance, if there is no space and time (no existence), then why existence? From nothing, nothing comes.

 

 

Seriously, stop, just stop. Because all you're going to do is show your ignorance of modern cosmology/physics. 


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
IrishFarmer wrote: #1 You

IrishFarmer wrote:
#1 You guys are evolutionists

What the hell is an evolutionist?  I mean I believe that the Theory of Evolution provides a compelling, fact based - yet currently incomplete - explanation for the development of species but 'evolutionist'?  Sheesh. 

Quote:
since that's the only viable option for an atheist.

That'll come as news to quite a few people.

Quote:
However, creationists are often derided for their lack of credentials, their lack of evidence, their weak arguments, their rejection by the mainstream, etc.

I think their lack of credentials is precisely why they're derided by the mainstream. 

Quote:
However, pretty much all of this fits the bill of the Christ Mythicist. Its rejected by the mainstream, its not taught as fact in any public school, it relies on outdated, or uncredentialed "scholarship" and the arguments are either ignorant or weak.

And not all of us believe it either.  What's your point here? 

Quote:
Rook Hawkins, for instance, appears to have no foundation upon which to be speaking authoritatively for or against the historical existence of Jesus Christ. It appears that such people (which would include characters like Acharya S as well) are the Kent Hovind of Jesus Mythicism.

It's his opinion.  The point is that there are arguments supported on both sides which muddy the waters.  Creationism on the other hand has absolutely no credible evidence at all.

So, apples and oranges. 

Quote:
That said, here's the question: Don't you think its hypocritical - perhaps even irrational - to hold to evolution for the same reasons that one would then deny the Christ Myth theory?

It would be if people actually did.  Fortunately they don't. 

Quote:
#2 If you accept mainstream scientific theories, then existence (at least as far as we're concerned) began with the big bang.  How can you hold to an infinitely old universe (as a response to God not having to be created), based on this theory?

Dunno.  Ask a physicist, not my area of expertise.

Quote:
#3 If time began to exist at the big bang (at least according to Stephen Hawkings if there is something natural beyond the big bang it cannot have affected us, and we can get no information from it), then how do you explain the universe as an atheist? For instance, if there is no space and time (no existence), then why existence? From nothing, nothing comes.

Dunno. Ask Hawking.  That's without an 's'. 

Quote:
#4 The logic you use to debate is immaterial, is a construct of the mind, transcends space and time, and is absolute. Therefore, how does an atheist explain this without positing some kind of transcendant, absolute mind by which logic is bound?

Last time I looked the brain was a physical object.  You could try constructing a logical argument without using it but I'm not going to wager on the odds of success.

Quote:
#5 Why is the argument from evil still used by atheists? It causes a paradox. If evil disproves God, then God does not exist, but then evil cannot exist and you therefore have no evil to put into the argument from evil. Also, this causes you to have to defend the assertion of a universal negative: There is no purpose or reason for evil that can be morally justified by God. <- How can you possibly know this?
 

You're kind of missing the point of a paradox here. 

Quote:
#6 If you're an atheist because you lack a belief in God, then what seperates you from an agnostic? If you lack a belief because you think its irrational to believe in God, then what seperates you from a strong (real) atheist?

You're confusing belief and knowledge.  We are all agnostic as far as God goes since no-one can currently prove absolutely that he exists or not. 

Quote:
#7 As an atheist, there are no objective morals.

Yes there are.  We call them 'laws' and they're pretty objective to the society that abides by them.  

Quote:
Therefore, how can you ever criticize any occurance in the bible as evil? If its only subjectively evil, then that's no more correct than saying its subjectively good.

Possibly because the vast majority of legal codes view genocide, murder, rape and torture as wrong?  

Quote:
I really wish we could have discussed topics like these - and more - over the phone, but what are you gonna do?

Wait for you to come up with something original? 

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Hi Irish Farmer, I can only

Hi Irish Farmer, I can only speak for myself of course, but I'll try my hand at responding to you.

 I'm a bit drunk at the moment, so I hope not to inadvertently cause any offence, and as a New Zealander I'm sorry about that unfortunate spear tackling incident with O'Driscoll.

I understand that Brian and Kelly have had quite a full schedule from real life lately, as well as yourself being only one of many that want to talk to them at the moment.  That's not to say that you don't have pertinent things to impart to them, it's just a matter of limited time.

*

#1  You guys are evolutionists, since that's the only viable option for an atheist.  However, creationists are often derided for their lack of credentials, their lack of evidence, their weak arguments, their rejection by the mainstream, etc.*

'Beliving' in evolution has no relation with atheism at all actually.  All atheism is is the lack of belief in a god.  In regards to evolution though, the 'following' of it within atheist ranks is only due to the overwhelming observable evidence.  Any atheist or peson could just as easily and rationally be an adherent to another theory with the same or more evidence.  Of course, nothing in biology makes any sense except in the light of evolution (some famous biologist), and no other theory currently postulated matches the evidence as well as evolution does.

 

*However, pretty much all of this fits the bill of the Christ Mythicist.  Its rejected by the mainstream, its not taught as fact in any public school, it relies on outdated, or uncredentialed "scholarship" and the arguments are either ignorant or weak.

Rook Hawkins, for instance, appears to have no foundation upon which to be speaking authoritatively for or against the historical existence of Jesus Christ.  It appears that such people (which would include characters like Acharya S as well) are the Kent Hovind of Jesus Mythicism.*

True, it is not the consensus of scholarship at the moment.  However, you certainly couldn't accuse Rook of valuing old scholarship over new.  Every discussion I've had with him (admitedly not many) he has been rather vehement that new scholarship trumps old.  Just saying that something goes against the mainstream belief is an extremely weak argument, I think it's called an appeal to popularity.  If nobody questioned mainstream belief there would be no progress, and I personally am a big fan of progress, and the method that gives us the most progress is the scientific one.  You haven't mentioned any of Rook's arguments here and haven't actually argued against any of them.  There was another person that did a much better job in the mythicist forums, drawing on actual references and everything.  The last time I looked there (about a month ago) Rook hadn't responded, but I understand he's putting a lot of his time into his book, and I hope he either addresses the issues in his book, or puts the time in after he's finished with his book.  As far as I'm concerned, the jury is out in regards to the historicity of Jesus Christ, but I am certainly grateful for the mythicist campaign to remind me that I shouldn't have accepted the existence of that person as axiomatic.  It is very important to look at the evidence and follow it wherever it leads.  It's a pretty tenuous link you've tried to draw between Rook and Kent Hovind.  Last I heard, Rook wasn't serving time for a form of fraud.  I don't just mean this to be an ad-hominem attack on Kent, I think the fraud charge is entirely relevant to the credibility of his arguments.

 

*That said, here's the question:  Don't you think its hypocritical - perhaps even irrational - to hold to evolution for the same reasons that one would then deny the Christ Myth theory?*

You've drawn no link whatsoever between the mythicist theory and evolution.  Even in the 'worst case scenario' where an archaeologist digs up a parcel with a stone tablet engraved "Dear Mr Archaeologist, of the year 2007" with a handwritten letter from Jesus and a lock of his hair that could be DNA tested and found to have entirely unique DNA from anything else in the world (of course everybody has unique DNA, but you know what I mean), it would have very little relevance to evolutionary theory.  If at any time in the future the theory of evolution gets supplanted, it will have to be by a theory that takes into account all the evidence that also supports evolution. 

*#2  If you accept mainstream scientific theories, then existence (at least as far as we're concerned) began with the big bang.  How can you hold to an infinitely old universe (as a response to God not having to be created), based on this theory?*

Personally, I agree that the evidence points to our universe starting with the big bang.  However, I'd prefer for you to expand on your definition of 'existence'.  From what I can understand of the laws of thermodynamics, all it means is that the energy currently in our universe must have existed forever, as it cannot be created or destroyed.  Mind you, we have no authority to say that the fundamental constants of our universe apply anywhere except in our universe.  This doesn't mean that it's pointless to think about such things, and it certainly doesn't require the invocation of a god.  Your reference to an infinitely old universe is, I'm assuming, referring to Brian's comment in the debate with the banana boys.  I reckon this must have been a mistake by Brian, which is certainly easy to do under the pressure of a live audience.  Admittedly I haven't seen him retract this statement anywhere, but there's so many threads and posts to go through, you never know.  Remember that the only thing that atheists have in common is the lack of belief in a god, if Brian said that the snarf widget on his shoulder told him that all atheists should take a dump on a church doorstep, it still has no authority over the collective atheist position, as there is no such thing, except on the lack of belief in a god.

 *#3  If time began to exist at the big bang (at least according to Stephen Hawkings if there is something natural beyond the big bang it cannot have affected us, and we can get no information from it), then how do you explain the universe as an atheist?  For instance, if there is no space and time (no existence), then why existence?  From nothing, nothing comes.*

Yep, I'm pretty sure that current understanding indicates that time started with the big bang, it's just another dimension of our universe and inextricable from space, hence space-time.  So this goes along with the idea that the universe can have existed for 'all time' and yet not have existed forever, and have had a beginning.  I personally have difficulty reconciling this with the idea that the energy in this universe can have actually existed forever, most likely due to my inability to think about anything existing outside of time.  I liken it to the idea "what is north of the north pole?" nothing, it's a nonsense question, yet the only word I have for what happened before our universe is a temporal one, namely "before".  Note that this apparent paradox also lends no strength to the god hypothesis, this is what Dawkins refers to as the argument from personal incredulity I think.

As far as "from nothing, nothing comes" I think deludedgod has posted some excellent essays that discuss this.  However, as I have posted in another thread, why would there be nothing rather than something?  You have no basis to say that 'nothing' is more probable than 'something'.

*#4  The logic you use to debate is immaterial, is a construct of the mind, transcends space and time, and is absolute.  Therefore, how does an atheist explain this without positing some kind of transcendant, absolute mind by which logic is bound?*

What? This doesn't make much sense.  The mind is a 'construct' of the brain (to use your own terminology), and the brain is obviously material and by no means transcends space and time.  What do you mean by 'absolute'?  Please show me some evidence of a mind that exists without a material brain.

 *#5  Why is the argument from evil still used by atheists?  It causes a paradox. If evil disproves God, then God does not exist, but then evil cannot exist and you therefore have no evil to put into the argument from evil.*

Well, in a nutshell, evil could, and does, exist without god.  Were you trying to argue that god is the only possible source of evil?  I somehow doubt that was the angle you were going for, but if not then your argument is somewhat of a nonsequitor. 

 

  Also, this causes you to have to defend the assertion of a universal negative:  There is no purpose or reason for evil that can be morally justified by God.  <-  How can you possibly know this?*

Well of course, once you start invoking magic and god, there is nothing that is impossible.  I mean, when some guy gives most of his life devoted to charity, loves his wife, supports his family, etc, etc  BUT!  A decendant of his is going to be a mass murderer!  With that knowledge, I suppose you could morally defend god for striking him down with lightning.  Problem is that there's no evidence for it either!  Of course, God isn't so quick and clean as that all the time.  How about we make a wasp that injects it's egg into another living insect so that it's offspring can eat their way out, no doubt causing the maximum amount of agony available to an insect, I mean the butterfly was going to cause a hurricane on the other side of the world, killing thousands.  Except hurricanes still happen.  If it's an omni-benevolent god we have, then he needs to attend a benevolence workshop or something.

*#6  If you're an atheist because you lack a belief in God, then what seperates you from an agnostic?  If you lack a belief because you think its irrational to believe in God, then what seperates you from a strong (real) atheist?*

Well, everybody is a theist or an atheist.  Todangst has written an excellent essay on the subject.  Basically, you can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist, etc.

Agnosticism refers to the question of whether we have knowledge of god or not.  I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't think we have knowledge of god, and I lack a belief in such a thing.  Somebody could be an agnostic theist in the sense that they don't have knowledge of god but believe anyway, or a gnostic theist that claims to have knowledge of god and believes in god, etc.

 Nice touch with the "real" atheist comment, maybe you should have read a few things on this site before making it though, eh?

*

#7  As an atheist, there are no objective morals.  Therefore, how can you ever criticize any occurance in the bible as evil?  If its only subjectively evil, then that's no more correct than saying its subjectively good.*

lol!  Are you trying to argue that atheists have no morals?  We have human morals just like everybody else.  If our morals were from god we'd be fine with mass murder and slavery, fortunately that's not where our morals come from, and if you agree with me on those issues and others, then god isn't where you get your morals from either.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
IrishFarmer wrote:   I

IrishFarmer wrote:

 

I really wish we could have discussed topics like these - and more - over the phone, but what are you gonna do?

Are you baiting them?

Clever >_> 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
IrishFarmer

IrishFarmer wrote:

Hey,

Is for horses.... LOL! (Ha, bet you didn't see that one coming.) 

 

IrishFarmer wrote:
#1 You guys are evolutionists, since that's the only viable option for an atheist. However, creationists are often derided for their lack of credentials, their lack of evidence, their weak arguments, their rejection by the mainstream, etc.

You said this was #1, where is the question? Yes, most RATIONAL thinkers understand there is overwhelming evidence to support the theory of evolution. There is the fossil record, the genetic record and the current work being done in labs around the world by people of all faiths that supports this valid scientific theory. Simply deriding it by calling people "evolutionists" who understand the science and accept it's validity does not negate the facts that hold up the theory.

If you drive a car shall we call you a "combustionist"? No, that would be silly... we know combustion happen, it is not a 'belief'. Same thing for evolution.

IrishFarmer wrote:
However, pretty much all of this fits the bill of the Christ Mythicist. Its rejected by the mainstream, its not taught as fact in any public school, it relies on outdated, or uncredentialed "scholarship" and the arguments are either ignorant or weak.

What does this have to do with evolution? 

 

IrishFarmer wrote:
Rook Hawkins, for instance, appears to have no foundation upon which to be speaking authoritatively for or against the historical existence of Jesus Christ. It appears that such people (which would include characters like Acharya S as well) are the Kent Hovind of Jesus Mythicism.

Okay.... how did we go from starting a question about  "evolutionists" to "Rook Hawkins" and jesus mythicists?

 

IrishFarmer wrote:
That said, here's the question: Don't you think its hypocritical - perhaps even irrational - to hold to evolution for the same reasons that one would then deny the Christ Myth theory?

Ahhh, I see... here is the question. You are comparing historical studies to scientific inquiry? One is scholarship and the other, scientific evaluation. This is a non-sequiter. Science studies cold hard facts and ancient historical writings are up for interpretation.

 I couldn't care less whether 'jesus' existed, I do not have a belief in a god, therefore if this 'jesus' existed he would have been a mortal man and certainly not god-man. 

 

IrishFarmer wrote:
#2 If you accept mainstream scientific theories, then existence (at least as far as we're concerned) began with the big bang. How can you hold to an infinitely old universe (as a response to God not having to be created), based on this theory?

#3 If time began to exist at the big bang (at least according to Stephen Hawkings if there is something natural beyond the big bang it cannot have affected us, and we can get no information from it), then how do you explain the universe as an atheist? For instance, if there is no space and time (no existence), then why existence? From nothing, nothing comes.

As CptPineapple, said "Seriously, stop, just stop. Because all you're going to do is show your ignorance of modern cosmology/physics."

I think this is an appropriate response.

 

Whew.... I am going to let some of the other posters take on your other questions. This endeavor of responding to these convoluted questions has led me to need a drink.... I am going to have a beer. 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote:

BGH wrote:
IrishFarmer wrote:

Hey,

Is for horses.... LOL! (Ha, bet you didn't see that one coming.)

 

Is it just me or is it funnier when you say it, rather than type it (since the spelling is 'Hay'.)?


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
IrishFarmer

IrishFarmer wrote:

 

However, pretty much all of this fits the bill of the Christ Mythicist. Its rejected by the mainstream, its not taught as fact in any public school, it relies on outdated, or uncredentialed "scholarship" and the arguments are either ignorant or weak.

Do you even know the actual points of a mythicist argument?

 

Quote:

Rook Hawkins, for instance, appears to have no foundation upon which to be speaking authoritatively for or against the historical existence of Jesus Christ.

So you again assert, without evidence. Have you actually read his arguments?

Do you realize that there are NO records of any contemporary accounts for Yeshua Bar Joseph? 

 

Quote:

That said, here's the question: Don't you think its hypocritical - perhaps even irrational - to hold to evolution for the same reasons that one would then deny the Christ Myth theory?

Your own argument is irrational.

1) Evolution is accepted on its evidence.

2) Creationism is rejected because it's a very bad argument, not simply because of its number of adherents. 

3) The mythicist position also is accepted or rejected on its evidence, on its merits.

If you want to actually argue a point, first demonstrate an understanding of it, then present your counter arguments.

Quote:

#4 The logic you use to debate is immaterial, is a construct of the mind, transcends space and time, and is absolute. Therefore, how does an atheist explain this without positing some kind of transcendant, absolute mind by which logic is bound?

Logic is not immaterial, neither are minds. You confuse abstractions for immateriality.

Please explain to me how something neither matter nor energy can exist, or interact with physical bodies.

 

 

Quote:

#5 Why is the argument from evil still used by atheists? It causes a paradox. If evil disproves God, then God does not exist, but then evil cannot exist and you therefore have no evil to put into the argument from evil.

This is gibberish. There is no paradox. If 'evil' is defined as harm without purpose, then we can call certain things 'evil'. If a 'god' is defined as both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then said god cannot coexist with this defined evil. 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
The Patrician wrote: You're

The Patrician wrote:
You're confusing belief and knowledge.  We are all agnostic as far as God goes since no-one can currently prove absolutely that he exists or not.

And there's good reason for this. Most definitions of "Yahweh" steal from naturalism. Where they diverge (as in miracles) they're unsubstantiated.


Merakon
Merakon's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2007-06-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
You're confusing belief and knowledge. We are all agnostic as far as God goes since no-one can currently prove absolutely that he exists or not.

What can you prove absolutely? not much.

Quote:
Yes there are. We call them 'laws' and they're pretty objective to the society that abides by them.

Laws have nothing to do with morality, and in what way are they objective? There is no objective morality.

Quote:
Possibly because the vast majority of legal codes view genocide, murder, rape and torture as wrong?

So? The majority of people think god exists, irrelevant.

The powerful feed ideology to the masses like fast food while they dine on that most rarefied delicacy: impunity.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
IrishFarmer wrote:

#2 If you accept mainstream scientific theories, then existence (at least as far as we're concerned) began with the big bang. How can you hold to an infinitely old universe (as a response to God not having to be created), based on this theory?

 

#3 If time began to exist at the big bang (at least according to Stephen Hawkings if there is something natural beyond the big bang it cannot have affected us, and we can get no information from it), then how do you explain the universe as an atheist? For instance, if there is no space and time (no existence), then why existence? From nothing, nothing comes.

 

 

Seriously, stop, just stop. Because all you're going to do is show your ignorance of modern cosmology/physics.

Agreed. I think you have the right approach to this, Captain. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Is it

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Is it just me or is it funnier when you say it, rather than type it (since the spelling is 'Hay'.)?

LOL. Well aren't you a buzzkill?

He might have misspelled it, maybe he actually meant "Hay", it could happen..... LOL. 


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Hi BGH, I just wanted to

Hi BGH,

I just wanted to say, in your Avatar picture, you look really worried about that lump of silver above you falling on your head.

Just sayin'.  Cool


IrishFarmer
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-07-28
User is offlineOffline
Man, if I had a dime for

Man, if I had a dime for every time one of my points flew over your guy's heads, I'd have at least a baker's dozen. 

 

RE Magilum

 

Quote:
#1 Evolution isn't a default position, it's a well-supported scientific theory. You've presented a false dichotomy there. Creationism lacks evidence because it's not a based on evidence at all. It's a model of the world in search of justification. It's not a matter of popularity or authority. If creationism were argued by a respected biologist, he or she would still be expected to come up with evidence to support his case.

 

That's great.  I never said I was a creationist, so I don't get why you're telling me any of this. 

My point is that creationism is considered invalid for the same reasons the Jesus Myth should be considered invalid.  If it were a matter of evidence, then at least the most liberal of CREDENTIALED scholars should hold the position.  Creationism has more credentials behind it than Jesus Mythicism does.

Quote:
If Rook outlines his position and sources in his book, his claims will be subject to scrutiny just like everything else. You're free to ignore him if you don't think he's got the breeding papers to do proper research, but that would be an ad hom.

I'm free to point out what I think are facts.  I never claimed that Rook's specific arguments are false, just that the general theory is unreasonable, and Rook, like pretty much all of the proponents of the Jesus Myth, has no solid credentials. 

Quote:
There are a lot of theories about the origins of the universe, but really, you're just setting up a god of the gaps with this one. It's not really necessary to have an explanation just to positively exclude the possibility of one deity or another. There's no evidence for a deity, period.

 

It might be a god of the gaps argument, if I were actually trying to argue FOR God's existence.  But I'm not.  I'm asking questions about atheism.  Believe it or not, despite feirce resistance, atheists can be on the defensive every once in a while.  It won't kill 'em.

Quote:
Not this "problem of induction" shit again. Do a search for a rebuttal. I can't stomach it.

 

Very succinct.  Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  Weren't you just complaining about ad hom attacks?  This is an indirect ad hom.

Quote:
Neither exist. Both are just mythical concepts. There are things that are good and things that are bad. One act can be both if taken from different perspectives (i.e. the fisherman and the fish). Most people feel empathy for each other, and many for animals as well, and seek to reduce the suffering they perceive. Religion was probably invented to coerce the brutish and ignorant to behave themselves.

 

I'm glad you're willing to admit that Hitler wasn't objectively wrong.  That's one of the first honest responses I've gotten from an atheist in a while.

 

As for your last statement, I presume you have proof for that assertion?

Quote:
There is such a term as "agnostic-atheist" or "weak atheist." That is, no positive claim is made, but it's safe to assume (all) deities are mythical until shown otherwise.

Well, I won't get into that here.  Though, I really don't see how that seperates them from an agnostic, or how it makes a distinction worthwhile.

Quote:
Which is why you also have information in your magic book on beating slaves and sending your daughter to be raped. There wasn't objective morality then (in the iron age), and there isn't now.

This statement begs a question:  are those things wrong?  If you say yes, then you're conceding the existence of absolute morality, if you say no, then what's your point?

 

Quote:
The best we can do is act with compassion and humanity,

Where does the idea of an ideal "best" come from?  You're contradicting your own beliefs.

Quote:
both concepts which are constantly being refined by us non-sociopaths.

 

Man, talk about personal attacks.  Why would you even object to my pointing out the lack of education on the part of Rook, when you're willing to call me a sociopath?

RE capt pineapple

Quote:
Seriously, stop, just stop. Because all you're going to do is show your ignorance of modern cosmology/physics. 

Wow.  This isn't quite the response I would expect from self-proclaimed rationalists.  Do you have any actual objections, or are you just going to baselessly mock me?

RE the patrician

Quote:
What the hell is an evolutionist?  I mean I believe that the Theory of Evolution provides a compelling, fact based - yet currently incomplete - explanation for the development of species but 'evolutionist'?  Sheesh.

 

I'm using accepted terminology to keep my statements concise.  Do I really need to substitute "evolutionist" with "a person who either wholeheartedly believes that the theory of evolution explains the origin of life, or who thinks that it provides a compelling, fact-based yet currently incomplete explanation for the development of species"?

Quote:
I think their lack of credentials is precisely why they're derided by the mainstream.

 

Again, why are you attacking creationism?  I was making a parallel.

Quote:
And not all of us believe it either.  What's your point here?

The RRS promotes an irrational theory that has no solid foundation.  If you don't buy it, then why answer? 

This thread is primarily aimed at them. 

Quote:

It's his opinion.  The point is that there are arguments supported on both sides which muddy the waters.  Creationism on the other hand has absolutely no credible evidence at all.

So, apples and oranges.

The water isn't muddy.  Jesus Mythicism is along the same lines as creationism.  Its just a fringe movement supported by desire, not evidence.

Quote:
Last time I looked the brain was a physical object.  You could try constructing a logical argument without using it but I'm not going to wager on the odds of success

Are you serious, man?  The brain can grasp logic, however logic transcends our minds. 

Quote:
You're confusing belief and knowledge.  We are all agnostic as far as God goes since no-one can currently prove absolutely that he exists or not.

I'm agnostic, even though I'm a Christian?  You'll have to explain that one a little bit more in-depth.

Quote:
Yes there are.  We call them 'laws' and they're pretty objective to the society that abides by them.

ROFL.  They're objective because society holds to it?  That's funny.  They're subjectively true for society, is what you should say.  Some people within that society might disagree, no one can prove that they are more right or wrong, morally, than any other person.  And if something is true for one society, but not another, then how is it universally objective.  If it isn't, then atheism has an amoral foundation.  Not immoral, but amoral. 

Quote:
Possibly because the vast majority of legal codes view genocide, murder, rape and torture as wrong?

 

So presumably if the vast majority of legal codes said it was ok to do that, it would be ok?  Or how can you prove that the vast majority is "right" while the minority is "wrong"?  Furthermore, that's nothing but the bandwagon fallacy. 

RE Phooney

Quote:

I understand that Brian and Kelly have had quite a full schedule from real life lately, as well as yourself being only one of many that want to talk to them at the moment.  That's not to say that you don't have pertinent things to impart to them, it's just a matter of limited time.

In that case, its actually a matter of not saying you'll do something that you can't.  Seems a little unprofessional to me. 

Quote:

'Beliving' in evolution has no relation with atheism at all actually.  All atheism is is the lack of belief in a god.  In regards to evolution though, the 'following' of it within atheist ranks is only due to the overwhelming observable evidence.  Any atheist or peson could just as easily and rationally be an adherent to another theory with the same or more evidence.  Of course, nothing in biology makes any sense except in the light of evolution (some famous biologist), and no other theory currently postulated matches the evidence as well as evolution does.

Right...well, I don't see what this has to do with my point.  I wasn't arguing for creation or against evolution.

Quote:
True, it is not the consensus of scholarship at the moment.  However, you certainly couldn't accuse Rook of valuing old scholarship over new.  Every discussion I've had with him (admitedly not many) he has been rather vehement that new scholarship trumps old. 

Yes, I have absolutely no interest in history, but I could say that myself too.  However, if you mean to imply that Rook doesn't use outdated or irrelevant "scholarship" because he says you shouldn't, then that's a pretty flimsy case.  People can say one thing, and do another. 

I'm not even saying he does.  I was speaking in general terms.  I'm not even sure who Rook will cite in his book.

Quote:
Just saying that something goes against the mainstream belief is an extremely weak argument, I think it's called an appeal to popularity.

Certainly right, but I think its safe to say that if a theory is almost universally rejected, there's a reason for that.  Otherwise you're going to tell me that I shouldn't trust the peer-review process.

Quote:
The last time I looked there (about a month ago) Rook hadn't responded, but I understand he's putting a lot of his time into his book, and I hope he either addresses the issues in his book, or puts the time in after he's finished with his book.

What Rook needs to do is sit down in a forum and debate a learned person like J.P.Holding or Glenn Miller.  I'd pay good money (to the RRS even) to see something like that.

Quote:
It's a pretty tenuous link you've tried to draw between Rook and Kent Hovind.  Last I heard, Rook wasn't serving time for a form of fraud.  I don't just mean this to be an ad-hominem attack on Kent, I think the fraud charge is entirely relevant to the credibility of his arguments.

That's pretty bad reasoning.  You can't say that Rook doesn't have the similarities I've stated by pointing out that he has irrelevant dissimilarities.

Quote:
You've drawn no link whatsoever between the mythicist theory and evolution.

I tried to draw a link between creationism and Jesus Mythicism actually, so I won't disagree here.

Quote:
From what I can understand of the laws of thermodynamics, all it means is that the energy currently in our universe must have existed forever, as it cannot be created or destroyed.

 

No, that's a common mistake.  You're extrapolating the law out much further than it can go.  All the law says is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, in the context of existence.

Quote:
Mind you, we have no authority to say that the fundamental constants of our universe apply anywhere except in our universe.  This doesn't mean that it's pointless to think about such things, and it certainly doesn't require the invocation of a god.

 

Perhaps not but I wasn't trying to make an argument for God.  Personally, when I deal with atheists, I prefer to put them on the defensive. 

Quote:
Your reference to an infinitely old universe is, I'm assuming, referring to Brian's comment in the debate with the banana boys.  I reckon this must have been a mistake by Brian, which is certainly easy to do under the pressure of a live audience.

I don't know, it was almost verbatim to what I've heard atheists say many, many times (as if Brian had heard that response used before and was ready with it).  But I'll concede that until I become a mind reader, I can't know for sure. 

Quote:
As far as "from nothing, nothing comes" I think deludedgod has posted some excellent essays that discuss this.  However, as I have posted in another thread, why would there be nothing rather than something?  You have no basis to say that 'nothing' is more probable than 'something'.

Nothing is 100% probably in a state that is devoid of existence.  Assuming that existence is all that there is, of course.  I don't even believe that as a theist, but a materialist probably would.

Quote:

What? This doesn't make much sense.  The mind is a 'construct' of the brain (to use your own terminology), and the brain is obviously material and by no means transcends space and time.  What do you mean by 'absolute'?  Please show me some evidence of a mind that exists without a material brain.

I simply asked a question.  I'm not saying there is an absolute transcendant mind, I just want to know what a reasonable alternative is.  Absolute in this case means that the laws of logic are true whether humans agree or disagree.  Our brains can comprehend logic, but logic itself transcends space and time.  It is always true, no matter where you are, and they are immaterial.  We can think based on them, but they exist outside of our mind.  If they didn't, then logic wouldn't be absolute and intelligent interchange would be impossible.

Quote:
Well, in a nutshell, evil could, and does, exist without god.

Subjectively, yes.  Objectively, no.

Quote:
Were you trying to argue that god is the only possible source of evil?

No, only that God is the only way to objectively identify evil.

Quote:
Also, this causes you to have to defend the assertion of a universal negative:  There is no purpose or reason for evil that can be morally justified by God.  <-  How can you possibly know this?*

Well of course, once you start invoking magic and god, there is nothing that is impossible.

I don't get how this follows.

Quote:
I mean, when some guy gives most of his life devoted to charity, loves his wife, supports his family, etc, etc  BUT!  A decendant of his is going to be a mass murderer!  With that knowledge, I suppose you could morally defend god for striking him down with lightning.  Problem is that there's no evidence for it either!  Of course, God isn't so quick and clean as that all the time.  How about we make a wasp that injects it's egg into another living insect so that it's offspring can eat their way out, no doubt causing the maximum amount of agony available to an insect, I mean the butterfly was going to cause a hurricane on the other side of the world, killing thousands.  Except hurricanes still happen.  If it's an omni-benevolent god we have, then he needs to attend a benevolence workshop or something.

I'm not sure what your point is here.  Are you trying to argue that evil disproves God?

Quote:
Well, everybody is a theist or an atheist.  Todangst has written an excellent essay on the subject.  Basically, you can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist, etc.

 

I see those terms as contradictions, but I won't get into that here. 

Quote:
Nice touch with the "real" atheist comment, maybe you should have read a few things on this site before making it though, eh?

Who said I would agree with them after reading them?

Quote:
lol!  Are you trying to argue that atheists have no morals?  We have human morals just like everybody else.  If our morals were from god we'd be fine with mass murder and slavery, fortunately that's not where our morals come from, and if you agree with me on those issues and others, then god isn't where you get your morals from either.

Argh!  Ok, I don't want to get impatient with you, because you've actually been reasonable in responding to me.  However, I'm tired of hearing this response.  If I say that atheism is amoral, that does not mean that its immoral.  It just means that there is no real right or wrong except what people personally define for themselves.  Which makes it nothing more than a biological function really.  That doesn't mean you aren't good people.  In fact, most of my friends are atheist, in the sense that they lack a belief in God.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
IrishFarmer wrote: Man, if

IrishFarmer wrote:

Man, if I had a dime for every time one of my points flew over your guy's heads, I'd have at least a baker's dozen.

The reality is that you've demonstrated that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about on a wide variety of subjects!

Want to debate me, so I can demosntrate this to you?

Let's debate your claims about immateriality and logic.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
phooney wrote: Hi BGH, I

phooney wrote:

Hi BGH,

I just wanted to say, in your Avatar picture, you look really worried about that lump of silver above you falling on your head.

Just sayin'. Cool

I am... so what about it?

How do I know the html frame can really hold it up? It could crush my head, then I wouldn't be an 'evolutionist' anymore.

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
IrishFarmer wrote: RE capt

IrishFarmer wrote:

RE capt pineapple

Quote:
Seriously, stop, just stop. Because all you're going to do is show your ignorance of modern cosmology/physics.

Wow. This isn't quite the response I would expect from self-proclaimed rationalists. Do you have any actual objections, or are you just going to baselessly mock me?

This coming from the guy who started his post with these words:

Man, if I had a dime for every time one of my points flew over your guy's heads, I'd have at least a baker's dozen.

 The good captain was giving you sound advice: you don't know what you're talking about.

PS The Captain's not an atheist.  

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Wow.  This isn't

Quote:

Wow.  This isn't quite the response I would expect from self-proclaimed rationalists.  Do you have any actual objections, or are you just going to baselessly mock me?

 


I was baiting you to elaborate. >_>

 

 

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Quote:

Wow. This isn't quite the response I would expect from self-proclaimed rationalists. Do you have any actual objections, or are you just going to baselessly mock me?

 


I was baiting you to elaborate. >_>

I wouldn't take his comments seriously, anyway, seeing as he has no problem tossing insults himself.

I saw your words as a kindness, if he debates you on cosmology, he'll only end up feeilng foolish.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


IrishFarmer
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-07-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Wow. This isn't

Quote:

Wow. This isn't quite the response I would expect from self-proclaimed rationalists. Do you have any actual objections, or are you just going to baselessly mock me?

 

 

This coming from the guy who started his post with these words:

Yes, except I actually backed up my mockery by restating my arguments where they were misunderstood.  This guy just made a claim - that I know nothing - and then that's it.

I'll debate you.  But it isn't going to be on these forums.  I need a place that actually works like a regular forum, these forums are too much of a pain.  I'd prefer CARM, but if you're uncomfortable with the idea of being on a board funded by a Christian you can pick something else. 

 

Its been said twice now that I don't know what I'm talking about.  Yet I haven't seen one person contradict what I've said about cosmology and physics.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
IrishFarmer

IrishFarmer wrote:
Quote:

Wow. This isn't quite the response I would expect from self-proclaimed rationalists. Do you have any actual objections, or are you just going to baselessly mock me?

This coming from the guy who started his post with these words:

Yes, except I actually backed up my mockery by restating my arguments where they were misunderstood.

1) You were wrong on many of these supposed clarifications anyway, merely repeating the same flawed claims.

2) There's no need to add in the mockery if you have an argument.

3) Your behavior is still hypocritical: everyone thinks that their use of insults is justified.

 

Quote:

This guy just made a claim - that I know nothing - and then that's it.

Your posts prove that you are ill informed on every matter you've attempted to discuss. I'd need weeks to point out every error.

Quote:

I'll debate you. But it isn't going to be on these forums.

We can do it one on one, here, or in an audio chat, available through the site.

Quote:

Its been said twice now that I don't know what I'm talking about. Yet I haven't seen one person contradict what I've said about cosmology and physics.

That's mainly because your posts contain too many errors, I'd have to give you a course in basic cosmology and basic physics. It's painfully obvious that you've never read a thing in cosmology.

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/lies_damn_lies_and_false_beliefs_about_ex_nihilo_aka_how_to_pretend_you_know_cosmology_without_really_trying

 
http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_absurdity_of_the_cosmological_argument

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

#2 If you accept mainstream scientific theories, then existence (at least as far as we're concerned) began with the big bang. How can you hold to an infinitely old universe (as a response to God not having to be created), based on this theory?

I don't. Please educate yourself in cosmology and don't strawman my position.

Read these:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_absurdity_of_the_cosmological_argument

http://www.rationalresponders.com/lies_damn_lies_and_false_beliefs_about_ex_nihilo_aka_how_to_pretend_you_know_cosmology_without_r...

Quote:

#3 If time began to exist at the big bang (at least according to Stephen Hawkings if there is something natural beyond the big bang it cannot have affected us, and we can get no information from it), then how do you explain the universe as an atheist? For instance, if there is no space and time (no existence), then why existence? From nothing, nothing comes.

Again, please refer to the cosmology paper, and perhaps read a book on quantum mechanics.

Quote:

The logic you use to debate is immaterial, is a construct of the mind, transcends space and time

I beg your pardon. That's ridiculous. I hold a neuroscience qualification, and can tell you there is nothing even remotely transcendant about mental functions. Read this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/vitalism_immaterialism_and_christian_dualism_have_long_since_been_debunked_response

and this, to see the fallacy which you are committing

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_materialist_account_for_abstractions_or_how_theists_misplace_the_universe

Quote:

Therefore, how does an atheist explain this without positing some kind of transcendant, absolute mind by which logic is bound?

Again, please refer to two articles above, which will explain, in small words, why the notion of the mind as transcendant is absurd. Also, seeing as you are comitting the Transcendant Fallacy For the Existence of God, please refer to this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag

Alos, in the theological context in which you are referring to the term transcendant, the notion is meaningless, so I refer you to this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_clarification_regarding_my_position_relative_to_theological_noncognitivism

Quote:

#6 If you're an atheist because you lack a belief in God, then what seperates you from an agnostic? If you lack a belief because you think its irrational to believe in God, then what seperates you from a strong (real) atheist?

A fallacy of epistemilogical burden of proof and negatie proof and arugment from ignorance. Do you actually know the difference between an agonistic atheist and strong atheist, or that weak atheism is necessarily not incompatible with agnosticism? Being that you didn't, read this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_argument_from_ignorance_and_its_uses_and_abuses

If you wish for an inductive argument agains, refer back to the Cosmological argument essay and the links provided in turn.

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
IrishFarmer

IrishFarmer wrote:

Hey,

Brian, Kelly, since it appears you've completely dodged me on that talk we were supposed to have, I'll take your advice and post some questions here that I would have liked to discuss.

#1  You guys are evolutionists, since that's the only viable option for an atheist.  However, creationists are often derided for their lack of credentials, their lack of evidence, their weak arguments, their rejection by the mainstream, etc.

However, pretty much all of this fits the bill of the Christ Mythicist.  Its rejected by the mainstream, its not taught as fact in any public school, it relies on outdated, or uncredentialed "scholarship" and the arguments are either ignorant or weak.

Rook Hawkins, for instance, appears to have no foundation upon which to be speaking authoritatively for or against the historical existence of Jesus Christ.  It appears that such people (which would include characters like Acharya S as well) are the Kent Hovind of Jesus Mythicism.

That said, here's the question:  Don't you think its hypocritical - perhaps even irrational - to hold to evolution for the same reasons that one would then deny the Christ Myth theory?

You ask if it is irrational to hold to evolution (I assume meaning to believe that evolution is a true description of the means by which the varied life we see around us has come to be) for the same reason that one would deny the Christ Myth theory (meaning the theory that there is no actual individual to which one can historically attribute the acts many attribute to Jesus Christ)?

I can hardly make sense of what it is you are trying to ask. It is such a non-sequitur as to be nearly incoherent.

Claims, theories, histories, stand or fall by the weight of the evidence supporting them. Appeals to authority or majority are irrelevant in discerning truth fromfiction. Surely you know this. Why ask such a ridiculous question?

I have the feeling that with this start the possibility of intelligent educated discourse is slim to nada. That of course is just my initial impression based on the evidence encountered thus far.

Quote:
#2  If you accept mainstream scientific theories, then existence (at least as far as we're concerned) began with the big bang.  How can you hold to an infinitely old universe (as a response to God not having to be created), based on this theory?

I personally do not hold to an infinitely old universe, simply an eternal one.

Quote:
#3  If time began to exist at the big bang (at least according to Stephen Hawkings if there is something natural beyond the big bang it cannot have affected us, and we can get no information from it), then how do you explain the universe as an atheist?  For instance, if there is no space and time (no existence), then why existence?  From nothing, nothing comes.

From nothing comes nothing? Thanks for that vacuous tidbit.

There is no why existence. There is only existence. When you ask non-sensical questions you can not expect reasonable answers. Well, you probably can, but you shouldn't. 

If time did not exist before the big bang then before the big bang is incoherent and thus any question based in an assumption of a pre-universe state (which all cosmological arguments necessarilly do) are non-sensical.

There is no reason to assume either a pre-universe state or an infinitely old universe. If you think there is a reason then you need to show such a reason is required.

Quote:
#4  The logic you use to debate is immaterial, is a construct of the mind, transcends space and time, and is absolute.  Therefore, how does an atheist explain this without positing some kind of transcendant, absolute mind by which logic is bound?

Please provide you definition of logic as it seems you have no idea what logic is. Logic is basically the study of argument or inference. Explain how either of these require an absolute mind. Explain how an infinite mind can for account for them without being subject to them. Explain why it is you think you actually should be arguiong these things when you, obviously, are ill prepared. You have lots of splainin' to do.

Quote:
#5  Why is the argument from evil still used by atheists?  It causes a paradox. If evil disproves God, then God does not exist, but then evil cannot exist and you therefore have no evil to put into the argument from evil.  Also, this causes you to have to defend the assertion of a universal negative:  There is no purpose or reason for evil that can be morally justified by God.  <-  How can you possibly know this?

The first bit where you say that if the problem of evil is legitimate then evil can not exist, this is incoherent and can not be responded to as you have presented it. 

As for your claim that the atheist must defend the assertion of a universal negative, this might be true if we were discussing a non-omnipotent deity. In the case of an omnipotent detiy, however, such is not the case.

Omnipotence implies that moral justification for evil is unecessary as any identical instance could be brought about by an omnipotent deity sans the evil.

Must evil exist in all possible worlds? Must children be raped in all possible worlds where people are to be judged? Must holocausts occur in all possible worlds where god desires to bring about event x?  

Quote:
#6  If you're an atheist because you lack a belief in God, then what seperates you from an agnostic?  If you lack a belief because you think its irrational to believe in God, then what seperates you from a strong (real) atheist?

Why do you need to draw these lines of distinction? A lack of a belief is a lack of a belief. Whether or not one wishes to quantify it as strong or weak or knowledge based or lack of knowledge based is really irrelevant.  

Quote:
#7  As an atheist, there are no objective morals.  Therefore, how can you ever criticize any occurance in the bible as evil?  If its only subjectively evil, then that's no more correct than saying its subjectively good.

Explain how the theist has any claim to an objective morality that is not accesible to the atheist. In other words, think of why or how your god is moral then consider why you need posit your god to posit the existence of this morality.

Many atheists do claim an objective morality. That you have never encountered this shows that you lack any significant interaction with atheists.

Quote:
I really wish we could have discussed topics like these - and more - over the phone, but what are you gonna do?

Well, what you should do first is study some of these topics before bringing them up in a discussion forum like this. Your questions are farily basic and not much of a challenge to anyone who has given any thought to these subjects.  

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
IrishFarmer

IrishFarmer wrote:
Quote:

Wow. This isn't quite the response I would expect from self-proclaimed rationalists. Do you have any actual objections, or are you just going to baselessly mock me?

 

 

This coming from the guy who started his post with these words:

Yes, except I actually backed up my mockery by restating my arguments where they were misunderstood. This guy just made a claim - that I know nothing - and then that's it.

I'll debate you. But it isn't going to be on these forums. I need a place that actually works like a regular forum, these forums are too much of a pain. I'd prefer CARM, but if you're uncomfortable with the idea of being on a board funded by a Christian...

... and owned by a moron.

 

Weren't you just making a case about us not taking your debate? You have an offer from Todangst, and this site isn't good enough? Does this seem backwards to you?

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Quote:   Also, this causes

Quote:
  Also, this causes you to have to defend the assertion of a universal negative:  There is no purpose or reason for evil that can be morally justified by God.  <-  How can you possibly know this?

 

This is a special plead fallacy... it seems silly to point out just one of the many fallacies in his post, but this one struck me as particularly inept.

Hey, let's employ his logic... farmer, you owe me 1 million dollars. How can you possibly prove that my claim isn't true in some way that you could never know? 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:   Weren't

Sapient wrote:

 

Weren't you just making a case about us not taking your debate? You have an offer from Todangst, and this site isn't good enough? Does this seem backwards to you?

 

LOL ....  Nice point!

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
If todangst is too scary,

If todangst is too scary, you could always debate with me - I don't have a profile pic as scary as he does, and I don't consider myself an atheist(though I have no doubt I could argue their views well)

Or, if you don't want to argue todangst, I will debate him for you - I'll take up the role of the uninformed theist and argue much better than I believe you could.

BTW, I'm not being sarcastic or mean.  Not totally.  I just think that if you debate him, we are going to have a twenty page long thread where nothing really gets resolved. 

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Being that we are all here,

Being that we are all here, I might as take you up on the same offer, to debate you alongside todangst on the topics of:

Cosmology and the cosmological argument

TAG and the Uniformity of nature

Evolution and its biological validity

The possibility or lack thereof of immaterial minds and the relevant neuroscience.

On the condition, of course, which I am sure todangst would agree with, that you read my writings on these subjects which give my preestablished and current positions on these matters. I belive I have already offered some of these articles, although I did not offer any of a biology/evolution nature, being that my maing qualification is in molecular biology, I of course have plenty of writing on that subject. Four articles on this site at last count, which you should find if you follow the links back to mine and todangst's work compilations. 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm a Theist and I'll

I'm a Theist and I'll debate.


IrishFarmer
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-07-28
User is offlineOffline
I'll respond to everyone

I'll respond to everyone else in a day or so in depth, I just wanted to get back to this comment.

 

Quote:

IrishFarmer wrote:
Quote:

Wow. This isn't quite the response I would expect from self-proclaimed rationalists. Do you have any actual objections, or are you just going to baselessly mock me?

 

 

This coming from the guy who started his post with these words:

 

Yes, except I actually backed up my mockery by restating my arguments where they were misunderstood. This guy just made a claim - that I know nothing - and then that's it.

I'll debate you. But it isn't going to be on these forums. I need a place that actually works like a regular forum, these forums are too much of a pain. I'd prefer CARM, but if you're uncomfortable with the idea of being on a board funded by a Christian...

 

 

... and owned by a moron.

 

Weren't you just making a case about us not taking your debate? You have an offer from Todangst, and this site isn't good enough? Does this seem backwards to you?

"Owned by a moron."  Eloquantly put.  You better not ever have at it with me Brian, because so-help-me God I will make you eat those words.  And you won't like the way they taste.  Smiling

But seriously, you wouldn't even be a challenge for me, so I wouldn't go spouting your mouth off while you hide behind the obviously much more intelligent members of your squad.  I'm trying to be as nice and neighborly about that as possible, so no offense meant, k?  Smiling

As far as your forum goes, it really isn't good enough for me.  The text window can't keep up with my typing, I get an error message every time I post (even though the posts work), and so on.  I have no problem with your site, per se, just the fact that the forum is too much of a distraction for a serious debate.  I don't think I'm being unreasonable.  If Todangst and I are going to have a debate it should be on a functional forum. 

 

 

 

As a quick side note, I loved those articles you guys linked me to.  They were good for a quick laugh.  Eye-wink


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

As a quick side note, I loved those articles you guys linked me to. They were good for a quick laugh. Eye-wink

If you had any formal education in physics, cosmology, philosophy, biology, and evolutionary mechanisms, which you, judging by your prose, do not, these comments would still carry no weight given that you haven't actually backed anything you have said thus far. A laughable ad nauseam fallacy, and a pathetic projectionist attempt to disguise the fact that all of them shot so far over your head you couldn't see the contrails.

And a quick laugh? Some of those were over 10,000 words long. I am starting to suspect that you didn't even bother to read them.

In a formal debate, if you responded to scientific articles with the post "I laughed", and that's it, you would be banned straight away. I imagine that most of the concepts presented within flew over your head the way a space shuttle flies over an ant.

I actually doubt you even read them.

Could you please tell me what the relationship between probability entropy mechanics and the Boltzmann constant is?

Could you tell me what the percentage difference between the human and potted pea plant Eukaryotic genetic mechanism sequestering octomer is in terms of amino acid divergence?

Could you tell me what the formulae for acceleration with reference to Hubble's constant differentiated is?

could you tell me the rate of acceleration of Guthian inflation is?

Could you tell me the formulae which governs microstate system dynamics in any ideal gas system as per Boltzmann's equations?

If not, then you didn't read the articles!

If you have genuine technical objections to any of the articles, then by all means take the time to present them in a quote-response fashion. But what you have just done is beyond immature. It is the behaivour I would expect from a deluded schizophrenic. If you cannot have a genuine argument, then why are you here?

And please, if your "objection" turns out to be what is essentially a misunderstanding of scientific concepts, all I will do, as will todangst, is point you to a book. Perhaps a nicely decorated book with big letters and small words. It can even have lots of nice pictures. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
IrishFarmer wrote:   As a

IrishFarmer wrote:

 

As a quick side note, I loved those articles you guys linked me to. They were good for a quick laugh. Eye-wink

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/science/9731

 

Try that one out for a 'laugh' 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Try that one out

Quote:

Try that one out for a 'laugh'

If he didn't read what we gave him, what makes you think that he will read what you gave him? Seriously, I just checked the "counter", which ticks off all the reads for all of my articles, and I was right, he didn't read them. Don't you think you are being rather overly hopeful to have thought that he may be interested in genuine debate with people who know what they are talking about (such as the three of us, all of whom have scientific qualifications).

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

 Seriously, I just checked the "counter", which ticks off all the reads for all of my articles, and I was right, he didn't read them. 

There's a 'counter'? Is there one for topics?

 

Quote:

 If he didn't read what we gave him, what makes you think that he will read what you gave him?

The point was not that he would read it, but the point was to put it out there. That way he can't say we never addressed his arguments.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: There's a

Quote:

There's a 'counter'? Is there one for topics?

The counter is only for authored papers. Forum threads, unfortunately, do not have them. Although I wish they did, it would make life easier.

Quote:

The point was not that he would read it, but the point was to put it out there. That way he can't say we never addressed his arguments.

Exactly. Quite honestly, when I link my articles to responses, I don't expect them to be read, and by checking the counter, it turns out that I am nearly always correct. People don't bother. The only reason I put them out there is that there is no excuse for saying that a point is as of yet unanswered. Welcome to the world of debating online. 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
IrishFarmer wrote: I'll

IrishFarmer wrote:

I'll respond to everyone else in a day or so in depth, I just wanted to get back to this comment.

 

Quote:

IrishFarmer wrote:
Quote:

Wow. This isn't quite the response I would expect from self-proclaimed rationalists. Do you have any actual objections, or are you just going to baselessly mock me?

 

 

This coming from the guy who started his post with these words:

 

Yes, except I actually backed up my mockery by restating my arguments where they were misunderstood. This guy just made a claim - that I know nothing - and then that's it.

I'll debate you. But it isn't going to be on these forums. I need a place that actually works like a regular forum, these forums are too much of a pain. I'd prefer CARM, but if you're uncomfortable with the idea of being on a board funded by a Christian...

 

 

... and owned by a moron.

 

Weren't you just making a case about us not taking your debate? You have an offer from Todangst, and this site isn't good enough? Does this seem backwards to you?

"Owned by a moron." Eloquantly put.

 

The word would be eloquently LOLZ!!!!11 

My statement was the most succinct way to describe the extremely unintelligent yellow bus riding Matt Slick.  I need not go into lengthy prose on just how many ways he is moronic, most people here recognize that his arguments are too poor to warrant the time.   If you don't recognize why he is a moron then at the very best you are not likely to understand the arguments against him at the very worst you are in the same range of his intellectual ability.    

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

Seriously, I just checked the "counter", which ticks off all the reads for all of my articles, and I was right, he didn't read them. 

I did in fact check the logs.  He didn't read them. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Big shock. I've never such

Big shock. I've never such a display of the Dunning Kruger effect as that of the OP. I cannot access the logs for todangst's writings, but could you please check the logs for the articles

-Common Cosmological Misconceptions

-Ontological/Epistemological blunders in TAG

-A Materialist Account For Abstractions

And tell me if he read them.

How do you access the counter? I thought only the author could see them. (Obivously, being that this is your site, you can access it, I'm just interested in how) 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
That's great.  I never

That's great.  I never said I was a creationist, so I don't get why you're telling me any of this. 

 

Good to hear. But it doesn't affect your argument in the least.

 

My point is that creationism is considered invalid for the same reasons the Jesus Myth should be considered invalid.  If it were a matter of evidence, then at least the most liberal of CREDENTIALED scholars should hold the position.  Creationism has more credentials behind it than Jesus Mythicism does.

 

Now you're appealing to authority and popularity, which is not what the creation v. evolution "debate" is about. Although evolution is popular with respected biologists, that has no bearing on whether it's true or not. It's considered true because evidence bears it out. Again, there is no evidence for creation because creationism isn't founded on evidence. It's founded on ad hoc conjecture in support of presupposition. Rook may or may not be correct in his position, but it is only evidence that will bear that out.

 

I'm free to point out what I think are facts.  I never claimed that Rook's specific arguments are false, just that the general theory is unreasonable, and Rook, like pretty much all of the proponents of the Jesus Myth, has no solid credentials. 

 

That's an ad hom. You don't like the idea, too bad.

 

It might be a god of the gaps argument, if I were actually trying to argue FOR God's existence.  But I'm not.  I'm asking questions about atheism.  Believe it or not, despite feirce resistance, atheists can be on the defensive every once in a while.  It won't kill 'em.

 

Atheism suggests one idea, doesn't address universal origins, evolution, or anything else.

 

I'm glad you're willing to admit that Hitler wasn't objectively wrong.  That's one of the first honest responses I've gotten from an atheist in a while.

 

Godwin, awesome. What Hitler did is almost universally reviled for biological and social reasons, which sounds glib compared to a magic man in the sky condemning the actions, by what can you do.

 

As for your last statement, I presume you have proof for that assertion?

 

It's an opinion based on informal observation, nothing more. A fake reward/punishment scheme is good for encouraging stupid people to do the right thing when the reasons to do so aren't self-evident.

 

Well, I won't get into that here.  Though, I really don't see how that seperates them from an agnostic, or how it makes a distinction worthwhile.

 

The shifts in terminology date back to the early nineties. Personally, I think it's weird to have a blanket negative term that's different in various cultural contexts. As Dawkins pointed out, believers tend to be atheists to all but one deity; atheists believing in one less 'god.'

 

This statement begs a question:  are those things wrong?  If you say yes, then you're conceding the existence of absolute morality, if you say no, then what's your point?

 

They're wrong by pretty common social standards. I can feel they're wrong on a visceral level, and I'm sure psychology has loads to say about its impact on the individual and the community as a whole. Do we have to pretend society's moral standard doesn't exist, and our personal moral standards don't exist, because they're not attributed to some superstitious bogeyman?

 

Where does the idea of an ideal "best" come from?  You're contradicting your own beliefs.

 

That which is least offensive to the common morality. We will prove to be wrong on certain things as time wears on, but most of us are trying to promote a moral and humane society.

 

Man, talk about personal attacks.  Why would you even object to my pointing out the lack of education on the part of Rook, when you're willing to call me a sociopath?

 

I was referring to actual sociopaths who feel no empathy or obligation to society. The rest of us are compulsively moral.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
IrishFarmer wrote:

IrishFarmer wrote:

"Owned by a moron." Eloquantly put. You better not ever have at it with me Brian, because so-help-me God I will make you eat those words. And you won't like the way they taste. Smiling

But seriously, you wouldn't even be a challenge for me, so I wouldn't go spouting your mouth off while you hide behind the obviously much more intelligent members of your squad. I'm trying to be as nice and neighborly about that as possible, so no offense meant, k? Smiling

As far as your forum goes, it really isn't good enough for me. The text window can't keep up with my typing, I get an error message every time I post (even though the posts work), and so on. I have no problem with your site, per se, just the fact that the forum is too much of a distraction for a serious debate. I don't think I'm being unreasonable. If Todangst and I are going to have a debate it should be on a functional forum.

Tell me, did your dog eat your homework too? 

You're running from the debate. Not a surprise, given that your first post read as a projection of your own fears.

 

 

Quote:

 As a quick side note, I loved those articles you guys linked me to. They were good for a quick laugh. Eye-wink

A nervous laugh, no doubt.

As for your laugh being 'quick', again, no doubt... you saw the posts and quickly realized they went way, way, way, way over your head, emitted your nervous laugh, and ran.

Just like you're looking to run from my debate challenge.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

Big shock. I've never such a display of the Dunning Kruger effect as that of the OP. I cannot access the logs for todangst's writings, but could you please check the logs for the articles

-Common Cosmological Misconceptions

-Ontological/Epistemological blunders in TAG

-A Materialist Account For Abstractions

And tell me if he read them.

I can't be sure if he opened the pages or not.

As for him actually reading them, while it's painfully obvious that time alone precludes him from doing so (let alone his violent ignorance of the topics already revealed in his posts) we don't need to puzzle that out ourselves... we can do precisely as you have done: challenge him to answer some questions answered within our posts. I somehow get the feel that he'll avoid answering....

I'll prepare some questions too.

He's already searching for excuses to allow him to run from my debate challenge - citing 'format problems'. I suppose 'the dog ate my homework' seemed too transparent an excuse even for him...

 

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:

todangst wrote:
deludedgod wrote:

Big shock. I've never such a display of the Dunning Kruger effect as that of the OP. I cannot access the logs for todangst's writings, but could you please check the logs for the articles

-Common Cosmological Misconceptions

-Ontological/Epistemological blunders in TAG

-A Materialist Account For Abstractions

And tell me if he read them.

I can't be sure if he opened the pages or not.

As for him actually reading them, while it's painfully obvious that time alone precludes him from doing so (let alone his violent ignorance of the topics already revealed in his posts) we don't need to puzzle that out ourselves... we can do precisely as you have done: challenge him to answer some questions answered within our posts. I somehow get the feel that he'll avoid answering....

I'll prepare some questions too.

He's aleady run from my debate challenge - citing 'format problems'. I suppose 'the dog ate my homework' seemed too transparent an excuse even for him...

 

DeludedGod: It's easier for me to search logs (an admin only feature) within close proximity to the event. The further I get from the event, the longer I have to search. Considering I've already exposed IrishFarmer as a lying fraud who is full of animosity as he grasps at straws trying not to have to defend his position, I don't seemuch use in spending the extra time. As Todangst pointed out, merely from the time in between posts, there is no way he actually read and digested all of the contet that the two of you linked him to.

What I find most troubling about IrishFarmer is that he and two moronic people I happen to know he has associations with will ignore IrishFarmers abhorrent application of critical thought and will instead insist that he was victorious here and that "we" ran away.

I hope IrishFarmer proves to be someone who actually at least has the spine to defend his position. IrishFarmer, you came to this board, if it's good enough to post anything here at all it's good enough for a formal debate (excuse boy) that you and you Christarded crew all love to embrace.

Prove you have some integrity, take the debate, or be banned for being a liar. We don't have enough time here to grant our time to every nutjob that comes our way, you should feel priviledged you have the offer. If you find this site is not suitable for debate because the forum doesn't work properly than we will extrapolate that data to the extent that you have no interest in posting here at all, and will gladly deactivate your account to help you overcome your compulsion to post here even though the site sucks.

The obvious lie that you read the posts mentioned (and laughed it off) is the type of dishonesty that we don't have time for. Isn't there a commandment about bearing false witness? Oh that's right I forgot, you actually think you'll be forgiven for your wrongdoings because God came down to Earth as himself to sacrifice himself to himself so you could escape his evil and vengeful wrath. So feel free to lie away, murder, rape, steal... just don't do it here. Don't waste our time. This site is for people interested in discusion to further and advance their worldview, we don't have time for blatant dishonesty. The great minds of this site come in contact with plenty of people who are actually interested in furthering themselves, we'd rather converse with them. If you're purpose is (as I suspect) merely an attempt to reinforce your self delusions... get the fuck out.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
What was originally meant

What was originally meant as doing a favor for IrishFarmer (a guy closely associated with someone who we'll be suing for libel, wank falton) in allowing him time on our show turned out to be putting too much on our plate during a week in which we had a busy schedule. The week ncluded several nights in which both Rook and Kelly had to work at real jobs (but we're freeloaders).
Nevertheless we were interested in allowing IrishFarmer on the show, and then we read his blog. So there you have it... his compulsion, ended his chance, the story was written, and since we can reasonably expect he wont change his story when the evidence shows him to be wrong, I saw no reason to continue pursuing his appearance, something we originally only entertained because he was an obnoxious ignorant arrogant prick who would make for good radio.

IrishFarmer was given every indication that we were interested including an apology for missing our first recording session which we had miscommunicated the time to record. Since we were't able to answer Irishfarmers compulsive immature give it to me now or give it to me never attitude in his alloted short attention span, he proceeded to write the blog painting a false picture of the situation. You can read his first post here in which much of our conversations are outlined.

Nevertheless, I don't care much about his blog, it'll likely get more views from me linking to it, than he already had. I simply wanted to get the folks in this thread a little more aquainted with the background here.

In summation, IrishFarmer, you are clinically insane if you literally believe we are scared of anything you'd say to us. You are insane if you think we are not willing to host people on the show who would be considere good defenders of the faith. And you're violently ignorant if you believe that we haven't had people on the show who could defend their faith worlds better than you can. Seek mental help young man.

I'm looking forward to see how you squirm out of your dishonesty in this thread as noted previously, please address it, and remember I have logs to see where you've actually been on our site.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Wow, for some reason (and

Wow, for some reason (and against better judgement) I clicked on those blog links.   It's nothing but RRS attacks.  It's not like they sit down with your arguments and attempt to systematically dismantle them.  They simply call everyone names and make attacks.  

 

I'd call this a victory actually.  The more time they spend inside the house blogging about the RRS, the less of a chance they have to spend in Africa keeping condoms away from people.   (or whatever the current theist fad is) 


IrishFarmer
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-07-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Are you baiting

Quote:

Are you baiting them?

Clever >_>

Perhaps, though I have no intention of actually succeeding.  I don't think they will debate me after this.  Brian hasn't deemed it worth his time to answer any of my quesitons, instead he'd rather argue over whether or not I read some articles on his site.  Typical.

 

Quote:
You said this was #1, where is the question? Yes, most RATIONAL thinkers understand there is overwhelming evidence to support the theory of evolution. There is the fossil record, the genetic record and the current work being done in labs around the world by people of all faiths that supports this valid scientific theory. Simply deriding it by calling people "evolutionists" who understand the science and accept it's validity does not negate the facts that hold up the theory.

 

Seriously, will you please stop defending evolution.  I never argued against it.  You atheists need to quit being so uptight.

Quote:
What does this have to do with evolution?

 

Again, get off the fixation with evolution.  I'm saying that Jesus Mythicism is a good parallel to creationism. 

Quote:
Ahhh, I see... here is the question. You are comparing historical studies to scientific inquiry?

 

No, I'm comparing the lack of credible support for both theories, as well as the lack of good arguments, the abundance of ignorance by proponents, and the use of either outdated or faulty scholarship.

Quote:

As CptPineapple, said "Seriously, stop, just stop. Because all you're going to do is show your ignorance of modern cosmology/physics."

I think this is an appropriate response.

 

This is now the third time I've been told that I know nothing, yet I haven't heard anyone explain how they know this. 

Quote:
Whew.... I am going to let some of the other posters take on your other questions. This endeavor of responding to these convoluted questions has led me to need a drink.... I am going to have a beer.

I suppose writing a post that doesn't actually contain a lick of intelligence would wear anyone out.  Sticking out tongue

Quote:
Do you even know the actual points of a mythicist argument?

Yes.  Not that they're all uniform, some people disagree on certain points, but in general I do.

Quote:

So you again assert, without evidence. Have you actually read his arguments?

No, I used Rook Hawkins as an example, but when I derided the theory I attacked it in general terms.  Besides, Rook Hawkins hasn't said anything new THAT I'VE SEEN.  So I admit that he could have some groundbreaking research that he isn't just rehashing from previous works.

Quote:
Do you realize that there are NO records of any contemporary accounts for Yeshua Bar Joseph?

What's your point, exactly?

Quote:

Your own argument is irrational.

1) Evolution is accepted on its evidence.

2) Creationism is rejected because it's a very bad argument, not simply because of its number of adherents. 

3) The mythicist position also is accepted or rejected on its evidence, on its merits.

If you want to actually argue a point, first demonstrate an understanding of it, then present your counter arguments.

I wasn't going to argue the Jesus Myth.  It doesn't need to be.  It would be like arguing over whether or not evolution happened...what's the point?

Quote:
Logic is not immaterial, neither are minds.

 

Feel free to use this argument in any debate we might have.

Quote:
Please explain to me how something neither matter nor energy can exist, or interact with physical bodies.

Why?

Quote:
This is gibberish. There is no paradox. If 'evil' is defined as harm without purpose, then we can call certain things 'evil'. If a 'god' is defined as both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then said god cannot coexist with this defined evil.

If we can arbitrarily define anything as evil, then I can disprove God by the existence of 'evil' protons.  Feel free to debate this point with me, because I will thoroughly enjoy thrashing you. 

Quote:
Agreed. I think you have the right approach to this, Captain.

That makes number four.

Quote:

The reality is that you've demonstrated that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about on a wide variety of subjects!

Want to debate me, so I can demosntrate this to you?

Let's debate your claims about immateriality and logic.

I would do it, but I don't think that would be as interesting for you.  My point in bringing it up was what the atheist answer was.  You provided the article which, as far as I can tell implies that logic does not violate materialism because it is a product of properties of the universe. 

Quote:

I was baiting you to elaborate. >_>

Very well, but I didn't say I was coming here as an apologist.  I gave questions, and atheists responded by attacking arguments I never made like the cosmological argument. 

The only reason I would need to elaborate is if you didn't understand the question.  But I hear you're not an atheist, so its not for you.

Quote:

I wouldn't take his comments seriously, anyway, seeing as he has no problem tossing insults himself.

I'm only dishing out what I've gotten here from the first moment I posted and I was personally attacked for absolutely no good reason.  If you can't take what your squad of "rationalists" dish out, then you're a hypocrite.

Quote:
1) You were wrong on many of these supposed clarifications anyway, merely repeating the same flawed claims.

Ok, whatever, we'll figure it out if we ever debate.  Feel free to get a hold of me at my e-mail.  Irishfarmer@gmail.com

Quote:

2) There's no need to add in the mockery if you have an argument.

And so this doesn't apply to your fellow squad members?

Including, and especially, Mr. Sapient.

Quote:
3) Your behavior is still hypocritical: everyone thinks that their use of insults is justified.

I don't care if they're justified or not.  I'm just tired of hearing you guys complain since I've gotten more insults than content from the majority of you.  Which is typical, even when I'm not asking questions on this forum.

Quote:
Your posts prove that you are ill informed on every matter you've attempted to discuss. I'd need weeks to point out every error.

We'll see about that.  You don't need to pick apart my post.  We can just pick a good topic to debate on.

Quote:
We can do it one on one, here, or in an audio chat, available through the site.

I'm not doing an audio chat because I'll admit right out that you're obviously more educated than I am in the sciences.  However, if we were to do a strictly philosophical debate then I might consider it.  Something like the problem of evil.  Though I'm sure I'll get mocked for admitting that I'm not as learned on certain subjects as you, I'm at least man enough to admit that much.  It would have to be one-on-one because I'm not going to have atheists jumping in with irrelevant snide comments every two seconds.  Nor do I think you need any help.  Even if you're misguided on certain issues, you're intelligent enough to hold your own. 

 

I'm not doing it on these forums for reasons I've already stated. 

Quote:
That's mainly because your posts contain too many errors, I'd have to give you a course in basic cosmology and basic physics. It's painfully obvious that you've never read a thing in cosmology.

And you get that from me asking how an atheist explains how the universe emerged from nothing?

I suppose that makes several prominent physicists who have said similar things completely ill-informed as well?

I appreciate you linking me to the articles.  Despite your assurance from Brian, I did check a few of them out, namely the most relevant ones.  If you linked me to an intelligent design or evolution article I probably didn't read it because I have no interest in discussing the validity of evolution.  Certain other ones I didn't click because I didn't feel like sitting down and reading for ten hours straight.  The ones I did click, I read through the entirety of the majority of them, but some I did not read. 

Several people will cry a river about this later, and Brian will lie about it as well, but I don't remember signing a waiver saying that I had to click every single link and read every word in them before I could say they were chuckle-inducing.

Quote:
I don't. Please educate yourself in cosmology and don't strawman my position.

Since there appears to be some sort of reading comprehension problem with atheists I'll restate what I've already said:  This post is mainly directed towards the RRS members Brian and or Kelly.  If anyone else wants to answer them, fine.  However, if you don't hold a position that I call into question, then don't answer.  Its that simple.

Quote:
Again, please refer to the cosmology paper, and perhaps read a book on quantum mechanics

Yes, I read your article in which you make the common mistake of merely pushing the problem back...but we can get to that in a more appropriate thread or venue.

Quote:

 

The logic you use to debate is immaterial, is a construct of the mind, transcends space and time

 

 

I beg your pardon. That's ridiculous. I hold a neuroscience qualification, and can tell you there is nothing even remotely transcendant about mental functions. Read this:

Of course, the mental function is grasping logic, and I never claimed that grasping logic was an immaterial process. 

Quote:

You ask if it is irrational to hold to evolution (I assume meaning to believe that evolution is a true description of the means by which the varied life we see around us has come to be) for the same reason that one would deny the Christ Myth theory (meaning the theory that there is no actual individual to which one can historically attribute the acts many attribute to Jesus Christ)?

I can hardly make sense of what it is you are trying to ask. It is such a non-sequitur as to be nearly incoherent.

I'd ask if you need me to spell it out for you, but by the nature of typing I already have. 

Quote:
Claims, theories, histories, stand or fall by the weight of the evidence supporting them. Appeals to authority or majority are irrelevant in discerning truth fromfiction. Surely you know this. Why ask such a ridiculous question?

Yes, which is why the theory remains on the fringes of "scholarship". 

Quote:
I personally do not hold to an infinitely old universe, simply an eternal one.

Elaborate.  What does it mean to be eternal but not infinitely old?

Quote:
There is no why existence. There is only existence.

Oh, well in that case there is no "why God?" there is only "God."

Quote:
If time did not exist before the big bang then before the big bang is incoherent

Its logically impossible to have a time before the big bang, but I didn't think it would be that hard for you guys to grasp what I meant. 

Quote:
and thus any question based in an assumption of a pre-universe state (which all cosmological arguments necessarilly do) are non-sensical.

Please quote me where I actually formulated the cosmological argument on these forums.  You won't be able to because I haven't.  I simply asked a question.

Quote:
Explain how an infinite mind can for account for them without being subject to them.

When did I say that the infinite mind wasn't, in a loose sense, bound by logic?

 

In fact, since when did I even make an argument for you to attack?  I didn't.  This is yet another example where I asked a question and was attacked for arguments I didn't make, instead of actually receiving an answer.

Quote:
The first bit where you say that if the problem of evil is legitimate then evil can not exist, this is incoherent and can not be responded to as you have presented it.

You mean its too hard for you to grasp?  Let's lay it out.

1).  If God doesn't exist, then true objective evil does not exist.

2). The argument from evil disproves the existence of God.

3).  Therefore there is no true, objective evil.

I'm claiming there's a problem when you contrast premiss 2 and 3.

Quote:
As for your claim that the atheist must defend the assertion of a universal negative, this might be true if we were discussing a non-omnipotent deity. In the case of an omnipotent detiy, however, such is not the case.

No, that makes no difference.  Atheists made the claim that suffering is senseless, meaningless, purposeless, and morally unjustifiable for God.  That's the assertion of a lot of universal negatives.  Just because God is somewhere in there, doesn't shift the burden of proof.

Quote:
Omnipotence implies that moral justification for evil is unecessary as any identical instance could be brought about by an omnipotent deity sans the evil.

That in no way circumvents my argument against the argument from evil, since I'm claiming you have no way of determining what "evil" is in the first place.

Quote:
Must evil exist in all possible worlds? Must children be raped in all possible worlds where people are to be judged? Must holocausts occur in all possible worlds where god desires to bring about event x?

Again, these are all interesting little rabbit trails we could get into.  Otherwise you could actually respond to what I've already stated about the problem.

Quote:
Explain how the theist has any claim to an objective morality that is not accesible to the atheist.

I'm not claiming that, I'm claiming that atheism entails a lack of objective moral values.  That's all.

Quote:
In other words, think of why or how your god is moral then consider why you need posit your god to posit the existence of this morality.

You guys are great at dodging and trying to put me back on the defensive.  Its interesting watching this.

Quote:

Many atheists do claim an objective morality. That you have never encountered this shows that you lack any significant interaction with atheists.

I have encountered this.  If they want to excercise their right to be wrong, that's fine with me.  But every time I've asked an atheist to justify objective morals, they haven't been able to, or they simply tried to dress us subjective morals as objective.

Quote:
Well, what you should do first is study some of these topics before bringing them up in a discussion forum like this. Your questions are farily basic and not much of a challenge to anyone who has given any thought to these subjects.

Which makes it all the more puzzling to wonder why you had to constantly try and shift the attack back in my direction. 

And why you weren't able to comprehend some pretty basic points I made.

Quote:
Hey, let's employ his logic... farmer, you owe me 1 million dollars. How can you possibly prove that my claim isn't true in some way that you could never know?

You're the one making an assertion. 

Quote:
If todangst is too scary, you could always debate with me

ROFL.  Todangst isn't scary.  I can tell he's an educated, intelligent fellow, but all that means is that he'd actually be a challenge as opposed to the usual drivel atheists serve up.  Like say, arguments that male nipples disprove God. 

Quote:
I just think that if you debate him, we are going to have a twenty page long thread where nothing really gets resolved. 

No, I suppose not because Todangst also strikes me as posessing the qualities of arrogance and intellectual snobbery.  So I suppose that even if I did completely destroy him in a debate, I would just be mocked until I felt it necessary to cease beating a dead horse.  If he won, I would admit defeat, though I don't think it would be on the strength of his position, so much as my lack of knowledge.  However, I don't have any evidence that my knowledge is too limited to debate todangst on any mentioned subject so far with only a couple of exceptions (I would argue evolution because I'm an "agnostic" when it comes to evolution).

Quote:

Being that we are all here, I might as take you up on the same offer, to debate you alongside todangst on the topics of:

Cosmology and the cosmological argument

TAG and the Uniformity of nature

Evolution and its biological validity

The possibility or lack thereof of immaterial minds and the relevant neuroscience.

This whole time everyone has been telling me that I know absolutely nothing.  But now Todangst is going to team up with you to take me on?  Seems a bit like overkill, don't you think? 

But honestly, no thanks.  I suppose I can't stop you from e-mailing him suggestions, but I don't think he needs a partner.

Quote:
If you had any formal education in physics, cosmology, philosophy, biology, and evolutionary mechanisms, which you, judging by your prose, do not, these comments would still carry no weight given that you haven't actually backed anything you have said thus far. A laughable ad nauseam fallacy, and a pathetic projectionist attempt to disguise the fact that all of them shot so far over your head you couldn't see the contrails.

Mind reading?!  That must be a useful ability.

Quote:

And a quick laugh? Some of those were over 10,000 words long. I am starting to suspect that you didn't even bother to read them.

No, I didn't read ALL of them.  Some of them were irrelevant, and some I read most of, or skimmed over portions that had no relevance.

Quote:
In a formal debate, if you responded to scientific articles with the post "I laughed", and that's it, you would be banned straight away.

Wow.  Thanks for the tip, I'll keep that in mind.

Quote:
I imagine that most of the concepts presented within flew over your head the way a space shuttle flies over an ant.

You've got quite an imagination.  Actually, the math in a couple of the articles was beyond my grasp.  Though it didn't stop me from comprehending the point of the article.  In fact, it seemed that many of the articles, being geared towards laymen, could have made the same exact point without the technical details.  Though I'm sure it makes the authors feel a lot better about themselves intellectually.

Quote:
If you have genuine technical objections to any of the articles, then by all means take the time to present them in a quote-response fashion.

All of my objections would be philosophical or logical, not scientific.  The science was sound as far as I could tell from what I read.

Quote:
But what you have just done is beyond immature. It is the behaivour I would expect from a deluded schizophrenic.

I quite doubt that.  I can tell you that deluded schizophrenics would behave differently.  Perhaps a manic-depressive in a manic high, but not a deluded schizophrenic.  Thanks, by the way, for the always helpful insults. 

Quote:
If you cannot have a genuine argument, then why are you here?

I haven't had anything to argue yet.  The only one or two people who actually answered my questions (by linking to articles) want to have a focused debate.  Everyone else just tried to mock me and attack arguments I never made.

An interesting article, but I don't get what your point was supposed to be.

Quote:
If he didn't read what we gave him, what makes you think that he will read what you gave him? Seriously, I just checked the "counter", which ticks off all the reads for all of my articles, and I was right, he didn't read them. Don't you think you are being rather overly hopeful to have thought that he may be interested in genuine debate with people who know what they are talking about (such as the three of us, all of whom have scientific qualifications).

For your benefit, and for Brian's benefit who has falsely called me a liar and now owes me a sincere apology, I will go over all the links and list off each one that is highlighted as a previously visited link. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_absurdity_of_the_cosmological_argument

http://www.rationalresponders.com/vitalism_immaterialism_and_christian_dualism_have_long_since_been_debunked_response

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_materialist_account_for_abstractions_or_how_theists_misplace_the_universe

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_argument_from_ignorance_and_its_uses_and_abuses

Those are all the articles that I, as of this moment, have clicked.  It doesn't mean I read every word in every article, but I at least read enough to get the point.  For most of them, I read the entire article.

I don't know if your counter is screwed up, or if Brian's site isn't working for him either, or you're just lying about me.  Either way, I want an apology at least from Brian for falsely accusing me. 

You might complain that I did not read them all, or read every word of every one that I clicked, however here's what I said, for your benefit, and for Todangst's and Brian's as well.

"As a quick side note, I loved those articles you guys linked me to.  They were good for a quick laugh.  Eye-wink"

Obviously a snarky comment.  I can see where you thought I was implying that I read them all, though I don't see how that would be possible.  I didn't realize that my point would be this hard to understand.  Allow me to amend that statement so as to "idiot proof" it if you will.

I loved the articles you guys linked me to.  From the few I've read, they're good for a quick laugh.  Eye-wink  I apologize for not reading all of them word-for-word.  I did not realize this was required in order to say that I found the logic in some of them to be absurd.

Quote:
The word would be eloquently LOLZ!!!!11 

...

Quote:
My statement was the most succinct way to describe the extremely unintelligent yellow bus riding Matt Slick.

ROFL.  Brian, you would get rolled by Matt Slick in a debate. 

Quote:
If you don't recognize why he is a moron then at the very best you are not likely to understand the arguments against him at the very worst you are in the same range of his intellectual ability.

How convenient for you.

Quote:
I did in fact check the logs.  He didn't read them.

Whenever you want to give me that apology, I'll be ready for it. 

Quote:

I'm free to point out what I think are facts.  I never claimed that Rook's specific arguments are false, just that the general theory is unreasonable, and Rook, like pretty much all of the proponents of the Jesus Myth, has no solid credentials. 

 

That's an ad hom. You don't like the idea, too bad.

 

Its an insult to point out that he has no credentials?  Then perhaps you'll chastise your fellow atheists for accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about when we have yet to actually have a discussion.

 

Quote:
Godwin, awesome. What Hitler did is almost universally reviled for biological and social reasons, which sounds glib compared to a magic man in the sky condemning the actions, by what can you do.

 

Nice red herring, but I don't see how this is an appropriate response to what I've stated.  If it makes you uncomfortable to believe what you believe, that's fine, but if you don't have a point then I'm curious as to why you bothered informing me that a lot of people disagree with Hitler.  I already knew that.

 

Quote:
It's an opinion based on informal observation, nothing more. A fake reward/punishment scheme is good for encouraging stupid people to do the right thing when the reasons to do so aren't self-evident.

 

Oh, I thought it was being stated as fact, nevermind then.

 

Quote:

They're wrong by pretty common social standards. I can feel they're wrong on a visceral level, and I'm sure psychology has loads to say about its impact on the individual and the community as a whole. Do we have to pretend society's moral standard doesn't exist, and our personal moral standards don't exist, because they're not attributed to some superstitious bogeyman?

 

All of those things are subjective justifications for the morality, that is all I'm saying.

 

Quote:
That which is least offensive to the common morality.

 

Why is that an objective ideal best?  Or is it just what we want? 

 

Quote:
I was referring to actual sociopaths who feel no empathy or obligation to society. The rest of us are compulsively moral.

 

Indeed.

 

Quote:

Tell me, did your dog eat your homework too? 

You're running from the debate. Not a surprise, given that your first post read as a projection of your own fears.

I'm running out of patience.  However, out of respect I will refrain from posting what I would really like to post on this. 

 

Todangst, where in my post did I say I wasn't going to debate?  Apparently, "I'm not going to debate here" is the same thing as saying, "I'm not going to debate, period."

Try and pay attention.

A projection of my own fears?  It was a list of questions.  You'll have to explain how questions imply fear. 

Actually, don't.  I'm tired of hearing these sorts of comments from you guys.  The attitude I'm getting from all of you is starting to wear thin.

Quote:

A nervous laugh, no doubt.

Two mind readers on the same forum?!  Crazy.

Quote:
As for your laugh being 'quick', again, no doubt... you saw the posts and quickly realized they went way, way, way, way over your head, emitted your nervous laugh, and ran.

ROFL.  I'm glad you're proud of your intelligence, but I wouldn't go speaking too quickly.

Quote:
Just like you're looking to run from my debate challenge.

Running away from a debate by telling you that I'll debate you?  What is so unreasonable about asking that the debate be held on a functional forum?

Quote:

He's already searching for excuses to allow him to run from my debate challenge - citing 'format problems'. I suppose 'the dog ate my homework' seemed too transparent an excuse even for him...

Seriously, dude, if this is the sort of mentality you're going to bring into a debate, I'm going to cream you.  Believe me, I'm looking forward to putting you to shame, I'm just not going to do it on a forum that is inconvenient.  What's so hard about going to a different forum?

Quote:
It's easier for me to search logs (an admin only feature) within close proximity to the event. The further I get from the event, the longer I have to search. Considering I've already exposed IrishFarmer as a lying fraud who is full of animosity as he grasps at straws trying not to have to defend his position, I don't seemuch use in spending the extra time.

Brian, I started this post by asking questions.  Which almost no one answered.  Wherein the process of asking questions do I have to defend my position? 

 I'll thank you to retract your "lying fraud" statement now.

Quote:
What I find most troubling about IrishFarmer is that he and two moronic people I happen to know he has associations with will ignore IrishFarmers abhorrent application of critical thought and will instead insist that he was victorious here and that "we" ran away.

No, I'm sure they'll notice that all you did was ridicule me, then falsely accuse me of a wrong that I didn't commit.

Quote:
I hope IrishFarmer proves to be someone who actually at least has the spine to defend his position.

Why do I have to defend my position by default?  If I point out what I believe is a fallacious argument from an atheist, they're the ones who (having made the argument) must defend the argument.

Quote:
IrishFarmer, you came to this board, if it's good enough to post anything here at all it's good enough for a formal debate

I suppose I could make it happen.  But if this forum is good enough for a debate, then so is any other forum.  Its not like I'm asking him to take on 100 christians at once on a private forum where we can edit the discussion in our favor.

Quote:
that you and you Christarded crew all love to embrace.

Brian, just remember.  If it ever comes down to it, you will look like a downright fool.

Quote:
Prove you have some integrity, take the debate, or be banned for being a liar.

I never lied!  I simply said the articles were good for a laugh.  Never in that statement did I say I read every article down to the last word.  I didn't think I had to be that detailed.  It was just a quick, snarky comment based on the articles that I had read at that point. 

Furthermore, I've arleady accepted the debate.  I just said I'd prefer a more user-friendly forum. 

Quote:
We don't have enough time here to grant our time to every nutjob that comes our way, you should feel priviledged you have the offer.

This is the internet, and you have 100s of members.  You have nothing but time. 

You, personally won't debate me.  Instead you're going to have todangst, who is clearly more intelligent than you could ever hope to be, debate me because I think you don't want to do it yourself.  It has nothing to do with whether or not you can. 

Quote:
If you find this site is not suitable for debate because the forum doesn't work properly than we will extrapolate that data to the extent that you have no interest in posting here at all, and will gladly deactivate your account to help you overcome your compulsion to post here even though the site sucks.

So your logic goes something like this?

1). Irishfarmer does not want to hold a debate on these forums.

2). Therefore Irishfarmer does not want to post on these forums at all.

3). Therefore I will ban Irishfarmer, because he does not wish to post here anymore.

 The non-sequitors just keep stacking up. 

Quote:
If you're purpose is (as I suspect) merely an attempt to reinforce your self delusions... get the fuck out.

Judging by the unwarranted hostility, it seems that you're projecting your own purposes onto me.  But I could be wrong.

Quote:
What was originally meant as doing a favor for IrishFarmer (a guy closely associated with someone who we'll be suing for libel, wank falton)

Closely associated with him?  We have links to each other's blogs on our own blogs.  And we've conversed over e-mail...twice or perhaps three times. 

Quote:
in allowing him time on our show turned out to be putting too much on our plate during a week in which we had a busy schedule.

Yes.

Quote:
The week ncluded several nights in which both Rook and Kelly had to work at real jobs (but we're freeloaders).

The night in question involved no work, and it was stated that you would call me, as soon as the kids were in bed.  You left me hanging.  Its one thing to not be able to have the debate.  I can understand that, but to set one up, and then cancel without so much as a notice, an e-mail, a phone call, or anything is ridiculous.  I sat waiting in front of my computer for hours, for absolutely no reason just staring at the screen or going over my notes expecting a phone call at any moment.

You seem to have conveniently left that part out.  That's why I was complaining.  Not because you "ducked out", but because you wouldn't grant me a one-on-one (which is what we call a fair debate), you constantly left me with vague deadlines before rescheduling, and then on the day of, you're a no-show.  I was peeved.  I'll admit it.  I'm sure I wrote something that offended you, but then after that I changed my mind and expressed interest in renewing the challenge at which point you never responded again.

Quote:
something we originally only entertained because he was an obnoxious ignorant arrogant prick who would make for good radio.

Actually, up until that point I had been little more than a punk, but was generally friendly in our e-mail discourse.  I jokingly implied that Kelly would lose the debate in my OP, but...I mean, I put a smiley face and everything, so...Obviously it was meant in good fun.  Smiling

Quote:
IrishFarmer was given every indication that we were interested including an apology for missing our first recording session which we had miscommunicated the time to record.

You told me that you had a problem getting rid of the kids, not that it had anything to do with a miscommunication on the time.  In fact, in that very thread you link to I pointed this out to you, and you didn't contradict this, you simply stated that it wouldn't have worked that night. 

In your e-mail you were pretty explicit about the day, though the time was rather vague "sometime after 11".

Quote:
Nevertheless, I don't care much about his blog, it'll likely get more views from me linking to it, than he already had.

Not quite.  It has about 3000 hits since July 25th, and I doubt your demographic is interested in what I have to say.

Quote:
In summation, IrishFarmer, you are clinically insane if you literally believe we are scared of anything you'd say to us.

I don't think you're scared.  There are various reasons I could give for why you wouldn't take me on, and at this point I would assume its because you're apparently convinced I'm a liar, that I'm stupid/chistarded, or something along those lines - and as such not worth your valuable time. 

I simply think you'd get creamed.  Though whether you would see it coming or not, is a whole other question.

Quote:
You are insane if you think we are not willing to host people on the show who would be considere good defenders of the faith.

I have no problem with a defense, but why should I be on the defense the entire conversation.  You may not know this, but you believe some things to that can be argued against.

Quote:
And you're violently ignorant if you believe that we haven't had people on the show who could defend their faith worlds better than you can.

I'm sure.  I don't know from experience because I don't subscribe to your radio show, but from what I hear when an intelligent Christian comes on your show you just constantly interrupt them (it is 5 on 1 after all) and then eventually hang up on them. 

Quote:
I'm looking forward to see how you squirm out of your dishonesty in this thread as noted previously, please address it, and remember I have logs to see where you've actually been on our site.

I hope so.  Check the log of those pages I linked to, and when you do you can officially apologize to me on this forum, or you can do it through e-mail.  Either way. 

Todangst.  Since it seems you're putting on some kind of a show for your fellow militant atheists, why don't you e-mail me about the debate.  That way you won't feel the need to make baseless accusations about me dodging anything, and you can feel free to actually talk to me with a bit of honesty.


PillarMyArse
PillarMyArse's picture
Posts: 65
Joined: 2007-03-13
User is offlineOffline
IrishFarmer wrote: #7 As

IrishFarmer wrote:
#7 As an atheist, there are no objective morals. Therefore, how can you ever criticize any occurance in the bible as evil? If its only subjectively evil, then that's no more correct than saying its subjectively good.

The waters are muddy when it comes to 'Evil'. It is a word in common usage and is generally taken to mean 'Bad', if that isn't an oversimplification.

In the old testament, there is plenty or rape/beating/murder(god sponsored)/slave taking and a soupçon of incest. I can't speak for all Atheists, but for myself I completely disapprove of these activities. I go on the premise that everyone is equal before the law and violence against the person causes harm and is therefore wrong (substitute 'Bad' or 'Evil' as required) and I do so criticise it.

I consider this to be a very weak point, with the usual inference that Atheists are morally inferior to Theists. It was more than likely measured to provide an angry response.

 

Reading your blog, I was amazed anew at the propagandising of the "Militant Atheist", as if this were an emerging threat of dire proportions to chrisianity and religion in general. Atheist people are naturally concerned about their rights and worried that these rights are being infringed - not without justification it must be said. An example, should it be required, is George Bush senior's comments regarding Atheists. This from a top politician who's job it is to represent all Americans, in a country which supposedly has freedom of (and from) religion.

Religion has definitely not proved itself tolerant and just in centuries gone by, in fact it has been quite the opposite. You must understand the concerns people (Atheist people) have regarding their own personal freedoms?

If you must fight this Atheistic point of view on religious grounds, please remember not to fight the right of people to hold it.

Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.

Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
IrishFarmer

IrishFarmer wrote:
Quote:

As CptPineapple, said "Seriously, stop, just stop. Because all you're going to do is show your ignorance of modern cosmology/physics."

I think this is an appropriate response.


This is now the third time I've been told that I know nothing, yet I haven't heard anyone explain how they know this.

We've posted many essays on the subject, ones you claimed to have read!

So it would appear that you were lying when you declared that you read them, wouldn't it?

Quote:
Do you even know the actual points of a mythicist argument?

Quote:

Yes. Not that they're all uniform, some people disagree on certain points, but in general I do.

Please demonstrate this rather than just assert it. I doubt you know what you're talking about. I doubt you know much of anything about Rook's arguments.

Quote:

So you again assert, without evidence. Have you actually read his arguments?

Quote:

No

I cut out the rest of your response, because the only word that matters here is the 'no'.

You've not read Rook's arguments.

Yet you think you can comment on them?

Quote:
Do you realize that there are NO records of any contemporary accounts for Yeshua Bar Joseph?

Quote:

What's your point, exactly?

That there are NO records of any contemporary accounts for Yeshua Bar Joseph.

Quote:

Your own argument is irrational.

1) Evolution is accepted on its evidence.

2) Creationism is rejected because it's a very bad argument, not simply because of its number of adherents.

3) The mythicist position also is accepted or rejected on its evidence, on its merits.

If you want to actually argue a point, first demonstrate an understanding of it, then present your counter arguments.

 

Quote:

I wasn't going to argue the Jesus Myth. It doesn't need to be. It would be like arguing over whether or not evolution happened...what's the point?

You failed to deal with the points I made here. I pointed out why your argument is irrational.

 

Quote:
Logic is not immaterial, neither are minds.

Quote:

Feel free to use this argument in any debate we might have.

I'll be asking you to demonstrate how anything can be immaterial.

 

Quote:
Please explain to me how something neither matter nor energy can exist, or interact with physical bodies.

Quote:

Why?

Because you are claiming that there are immaterial entities! So you need to provide an ontology for your theory. You do know that that is required, don't you?

Quote:
This is gibberish. There is no paradox. If 'evil' is defined as harm without purpose, then we can call certain things 'evil'. If a 'god' is defined as both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then said god cannot coexist with this defined evil.

Quote:

If we can arbitrarily define anything as evil, then I can disprove God by the existence of 'evil' protons.

The definition given above is not arbitrary, it is inter-subjective. (Not subjective). So the rest of your quote here is a non sequitur.

Quote:
Agreed. I think you have the right approach to this, Captain.

Quote:

That makes number four.

Four of your lies, that is, seeing as you claimed to have read our essays on cosmology which provide this information.

What I find humorous is that you're going to assert that you read them, but your comments here PROVE that you didn't.

You've been caught in a lie.


Quote:

The reality is that you've demonstrated that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about on a wide variety of subjects!

Want to debate me, so I can demosntrate this to you?

Let's debate your claims about immateriality and logic.

Quote:

I would do it, but I don't think that would be as interesting for you.

So you're going to run away from my challenge? Again?

What's the point of coming here to make a challenge if you're just going to run away when it's accepted?!

 

Quote:

I wouldn't take his comments seriously, anyway, seeing as he has no problem tossing insults himself.

 

Quote:

I'm only dishing out what I've gotten here from the first moment I posted

Please stop your lying: you posted first. Your first post contained attacks. You sowed this discord with your post.

 

Quote:
1) You were wrong on many of these supposed clarifications anyway, merely repeating the same flawed claims.

Quote:

Ok, whatever, we'll figure it out if we ever debate

I'm right here, right now. Let's go.

 

Quote:

2) There's no need to add in the mockery if you have an argument.

Quote:

And so this doesn't apply to your fellow squad members?

You began this, now you want to whine when it comes back your way.

 

Quote:
3) Your behavior is still hypocritical: everyone thinks that their use of insults is justified.

 

Quote:

I don't care if they're justified or not.

Thanks for admitting that.

 

Quote:
Your posts prove that you are ill informed on every matter you've attempted to discuss. I'd need weeks to point out every error.

Quote:

We'll see about that.

We already have.

 

Quote:
We can do it one on one, here, or in an audio chat, available through the site.

Quote:

I'm not doing an audio chat because I'll admit right out that you're obviously more educated than I am in the sciences

How many excuses do you have?

You complain that you weren't on the show, which is audio in format.

But now you don't want to debate me in audio?!

 

 

Quote:
That's mainly because your posts contain too many errors, I'd have to give you a course in basic cosmology and basic physics. It's painfully obvious that you've never read a thing in cosmology.

Quote:

And you get that from me asking how an atheist explains how the universe emerged from nothing?

Yep. That and many other blunders you've posted.

Quote:

I appreciate you linking me to the articles. Despite your assurance from Brian, I did check a few of them out,

If you did, then why did you say this:

 


Either you read them, and you got your answers, which makes this comment from you a lie:

Quote:

This is now the third time I've been told that I know nothing, yet I haven't heard anyone explain how they know this.

 

Or you didn't read them, which makes your claim that you read them a lie.

Which is the lie? One of them has to be a lie.

 

Quote:
I don't. Please educate yourself in cosmology and don't strawman my position.

Quote:

Since there appears to be some sort of reading comprehension problem with atheists

No, the problem is clearly on your side. Quit blaming the world for your own problems.

 

Quote:
Again, please refer to the cosmology paper, and perhaps read a book on quantum mechanics

Quote:

Yes, I read your article in which you make the common mistake of merely pushing the problem back...

If you are referring to my essays, or DG's essays, your claim is simply false. You don't even bother to back up your claim, or show where 'the problem is pushed back' so I can't take your claim seriously to begin with.


Quote:
If todangst is too scary, you could always debate with me

Quote:

ROFL. Todangst isn't scary.

Yet all you do is come up with excuses as to why you won't debate.

 

Quote:
Todangst. Since it seems you're putting on some kind of a show for your fellow militant atheists, why don't you e-mail me about the debate.

You're the one putting on a show. You asked for debate, here I am. Quit trying to find excuses that allow you to run away.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
I'm not going to lie, I

I'm not going to lie, I didn't read most of that last post.  All thats been going on here is basically name-calling and personal attacks, not actual debate.

IrishFarmer, if you are here to debate, I will gladly do it with you.  Just ask.  If you are here to express your opinions, go ahead and do so, and accept the criticism graciously - you may not agree, but its no need to get mad.  And if you're here to start a fight, I'd tell you to shut the fuck up and get a life.

Everyone else, calm down.  If he's just trolling, ignore him.. Be the bigger man(or woman). 

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: I'm not

xamination wrote:

I'm not going to lie, I didn't read most of that last post. All thats been going on here is basically name-calling and personal attacks, not actual debate.

IrishFarmer, if you are here to debate, I will gladly do it with you. Just ask. If you are here to express your opinions, go ahead and do so, and accept the criticism graciously - you may not agree, but its no need to get mad. And if you're here to start a fight, I'd tell you to shut the fuck up and get a life.

Everyone else, calm down. If he's just trolling, ignore him.. Be the bigger man(or woman).

Everyone's calm enough. I've challenged him to debate, he seems to know that it's dangerous to accept the challenge and is looking for any way at all to run from it.

Which is pretty hilarious, seeing as he came here to complain about not getting a chance to go on the show, live, to debate.

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
IrishFarmer wrote:   I

IrishFarmer wrote:

 

I really wish we could have discussed topics like these - and more - over the phone, but what are you gonna do?

Invite you to stickam, where we can have this discussion on audio.

Or were you lying when you said this too?

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.