Brian Sapient's Questions Answered: Triablogue

drhowardbetz
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Brian Sapient's Questions Answered: Triablogue

Does anyone know which forum area or other location has the rebuttal or response from Brian Sapient against the answers to his questions regarding Christianity?  Here are the answers to his questions:

Correct link in the following post

I would appreciate reading his rebuttal. 

 

 


drhowardbetz
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-05-13
User is offlineOffline
typo

Sorry folks; in the web link I left out the letter 'n' on interrogator.  Here is the correct link:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/02/irrational-interrogator-squad.html

Sorry,

 

Drhowardbetz


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
  Try this one: 

 

 

Try this one:  http://tinyurl.com/6o8927

 


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Even though the TL;DR

Even though the TL;DR answers to the questions either beg more questions or fail to answer the each without circular reference, I'd still like to see what can be made of this. It should be interesting.

For example, in response to "Why does god have emotions?" the writer basically states "because that's the way the scripture was written." He seems to be implying that we wouldn't be able to understand it otherwise, but the question remains why should an omnipotent being "feel" anything, in any sense of the word!

The response also fails to give a clear idea of this "god" thing. We might as well replace the word god with "a mind without mechanism or foundation," since this god obviously doesn't operate anywhere.

At the end he indirectly compares god to numbers and laws. Numbers exist as concepts of knowledge, and without something to acknowledge them they do not exist. Same with laws. A physical state exists as a simple fact of reality, and doesn't need to be known to be present. A physical law is similar - it is how one state interacts with another. He's effectively saying that an actual orange exists in the painting of an orange, and comparing that to there being an actual orange. He goes on to eat that picture, and seems to derive much satisfaction from the paint and canvas.


entomophila
ScientistSuperfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
questions NOT answered!

You haven't answered any questions. You have only shown that:

1. You can't write a cohesive sentence!

2. You used the phrase "the fact that" so many times I wouldn't want to count them all as it would be painful. NONE of "the facts" are facts. I can't get past your first assertion that "the majority of people don't believe it" re evolution. Please note the following chart. Look where the US stands as compared to the rest of the world. BTW, "belief" in evolution is positively correlated with level of education, and level of education is negatively correlated with belief in a deity.

3. I'm not going to get into the rest of your logorrhea regarding the bible and "truth." I think you should read your bible at little more carefully....and then learn about the history of the bible. And for gawd's sake, open a science book and read it.     

 

This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
entomophila wrote:You

entomophila wrote:

You haven't answered any questions. You have only shown that:

1. You can't write a cohesive sentence!

The actual responder to the questions was Paul Manata, these and the story are over a year old.  I have a no respond policy to Paul after a string of emails with a very threatening tone.  Apparently he's one of those guys that measures the size of his penis by how well he can strong arm you in to doing what he wants.  As Mustard pointed out he didn't answer very well, but every time the name Paul Manata comes up I've made it my duty to post this quote from Todangst...

 

"Let me say this I love St. Michael compared to Paul Manata. I would have St. Michaels babies rather than talk to manata.  St. Michael would school him in logic.  St. Michael is a genius in comparison. Manata is immature and arrogant, he has an enormous sense that others owe him something. I'd give St Michael oral before I'd spend ten seconds with Manata.  Michael is just stupid, Manata is violently stupid.  Manata is an incredibly incompetent clown." - Todangst

 

For reference point: St. Michael is a highly annoying ex poster on this site. The only thing Manata has going for him in theological circles is that he finally dropped his presuppositionalist retardation.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:For reference point:

Quote:
For reference point: St. Michael is a highly annoying ex poster on this site.

Understatement of the year.

I would give up reading if I had to read one of his posts for every legitimate book I wanted to read.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism