brian and kelly and there failed arguments

askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
brian and kelly and there failed arguments

im just curious, how athiests defend this apparent contradiction that many so called intellectual athiests hold. 

I watched the debate between kelly and brian and kirk cameron from a couple years back and i was overwhelmed by the utter lack of knowledge possesed by kelly and brian in terms of modern cosmology and physics and meta physics and in terms of being able to form strong logical arguments.

For example brian mentions the 3rd law of thermo dynamics as support for an eternal past and matter being an eternal being.  This premise is only contigent in a post big bang universe according to all modern science so if we can prove that the universe came in to being which seems far more logical than this fallacy of an infinite number of past events that all but rendors that little argument useless.

Further more even if we permitted the argument based on his inaccurate depiction of the 3rd law of thermo dynamics wouldnt the second law of thermo dynamics form quite the conundrum for the athiest, specifically an athiest that holds to the eternal presence of the universe.  The second law of thermo dynamics states that in a closed system( which is ultimately what an athiest/naturalist has to subscribe to) that all things eventually will lend to disorder and chaos, so if we have in fact had an infinite past would we already be destroyed by chaos and disorder? hmmm?

Additionally i was shocked at their lack of awareness of what the real question with respect to morals was.  Brian and kelly were defending the epistimology of morals, which wasnt the problem.

I and many thiests can accept thiestic evolution and gauge that perhaps in Gods divine providence are knowledge of rights and wrongs could be a socially biological bi product.  But that was not the question the question was whether objective rights and wrongs exist?

 the athiest has 2 options he can take the utterly minescule minority of citizens and play the objective morals dont exist card or he can say objective morals do exist.  Now if objective morals do not exist and everything we know to be right or wrong are merely biproducts of an evolutionary process which encourages human flourishment, then why is rape surely considered wrong?

I mean from a biological evolution processrape could be beneficial to human flourishment if the appropriate specimans were forced to breed?  Interesting dichotomy the so called ethical athiets has himsefl in if he subscribes to subjectivity with respect to morals.  Now if objective morals do exist, then why?  Is the ethical athiest going to say that morals are some abstract objects that actually exist, hmm, sounds kind of irrational, because if " the good" existed " the good" itself could not be good because it is causally efete, wow were getting in to deeper and deeper athiest water, lol.  How do we know things are really right or really wrong, these beliefs can only be placed by a transcendent being of which whom's nature is the good which this being evokes to us, and by the way that statement in and of itself eliminates the eurphphro dilemna. 

I guess i could go on all night with this but i will leave you guys with this for now, hopefully i can get some truly rational reponses.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The moral argument is the silliest proof

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

unfortunately you are still missing the point, if objective morals do not exist than there is zero right or wrong, anything is permitted anything can be justified, so nothing God did is wrong, so you lose your main opposition to God by giving up objective morals, and by the way your statement  is circutious because we cannot say anything in terms of absolute certainity about evolution actually explaining origin of life because that is unempirical we cannot say anything about evolution conditioning our morals becaue those are merely observational conjecture s and we cant even be sure to trust our own mental faculties, so your last argument may seem good but it is a nonstarter

 

for god the world has ever seen. It's a fallacious argument for a start, an argument from adverse consequences, but most annoyingly it ignores all the obvious evidence. Kids are born with no empathy, no morality and they develop it as they mature. The idea there needs to be a universal objective right and wrong in order for humans to treat each other respectfully in a social context is flat out dumb.

If we can't trust our mental abilities to make observations about physicalism, including the expression of moral judgement, Simple, WTF are you talking about it for?

 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You have to be fucking joking, Simple.

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

I use rape as an example because it is the perfect case of an event that i think most considered wrong that technically according to biological evolution could actually deemed beneficial to human evolution and flourishment.  Rape in terms of right and wrong creates quite the conundrum for the athiest who holds that objective rights and wrongs do exist. 

 

Why would an aversion to causing another human pain be any kind of a conundrum for the atheist? Why don't you go out into the street and flog the nearest child to the ground. As you are listening to them screaming in pain ask yourself whether you need to consult the bible in order to work out that hurting people is wrong at a core human level.

It hurts to do it. It hurts to see it. Thanks to our mirror neurons we feel the pain of other people. That's how human brains work. Despite standout exceptions humans have a strong aversion to hurting each other. That's why we live in cities with millions upon millions of people stacked on top of each other yet mostly get on. Why are you trying to turn an ability to share an experience of suffering in our own minds with another person, into some arbitrary supernatural set of school rules?

Morality is human. Stop trying to put your doctrine's dirty trademark on it.

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
But, Simple

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

ultimately in the end the athiest has just as much if not more faith than the thiest because you have to assume certain events happened billions of years ago that there is ABSOLUTELY NO, NADA, ZILCH, way of knowing with any kind of certainity merely conjectures to preserve a naturalistic worldview

 

Atheists hold an open position waiting for better evidence. We are not bound to a doctrine the way you are. There are models of events in the past that are better or worser supported. We are not obliged to believe they are true on pain of death the way christians are. I don't have faith in evolution. There is evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for creation. If you show me evidence for creation, I will alter my position.

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Groan

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

i stand firm that belief in athiesm is not rational merely emotional, and most arguments are based upon presuppositions of naturalism which cannot be proven as the only realm and must be taken on FAITH

 

Go on - stand firm on your utterly proofless assertion, Simple.

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
askathiestssimplequestions

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:
So in turn whatever caused the universe had to be timeless, spaceless, matter less entity, of which is awesomely powerful,

Why does it have to be incredibly powerful? What does powerful mean?

Quote:
the only thing i can think of to fit that description is what plato referred to as an unembodied mind,

The fact that it's "the only thing you can think of" is not evidence. That just means you're ignorant. You need evidence to justify a positive claim.

Quote:
which conveniently is how the christian bible describes God,

And many other religions.

Quote:
this is a deductive to argument so you have to refute the premises for the conclusion not to follow,

Wrong.

The conclusion follows from the premises as long as the structure of the argument is valid. If the premises are shown to be incorrect, then the argument is unsound, not necessarily invalid.

Furthermore, your argument isn't automatically sound unless I disprove it. That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on the claimant. You have to confirm the premises in order to demonstrate that the argument is sound. Otherwise, the argument is unjustified.

 

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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:You also

Sapient wrote:

You also haven't grasped the spelling lesson yet.  It's ATHEIST.

 

fuckin' A!  goddammit, someone fuckin' hold me back, HOLD ME BACK!

(smashes dewar's bottle on the edge of the bar)

 

 

 

 

(yeah, that's right.  there's a bar in here.)

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16458
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
askathiestssimplequestions

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

im just curious, how athiests defend this apparent contradiction that many so called intellectual athiests hold. 

I watched the debate between kelly and brian and kirk cameron from a couple years back and i was overwhelmed by the utter lack of knowledge possesed by kelly and brian in terms of modern cosmology and physics and meta physics and in terms of being able to form strong logical arguments.

For example brian mentions the 3rd law of thermo dynamics as support for an eternal past and matter being an eternal being.  This premise is only contigent in a post big bang universe according to all modern science so if we can prove that the universe came in to being which seems far more logical than this fallacy of an infinite number of past events that all but rendors that little argument useless.

Further more even if we permitted the argument based on his inaccurate depiction of the 3rd law of thermo dynamics wouldnt the second law of thermo dynamics form quite the conundrum for the athiest, specifically an athiest that holds to the eternal presence of the universe.  The second law of thermo dynamics states that in a closed system( which is ultimately what an athiest/naturalist has to subscribe to) that all things eventually will lend to disorder and chaos, so if we have in fact had an infinite past would we already be destroyed by chaos and disorder? hmmm?

Additionally i was shocked at their lack of awareness of what the real question with respect to morals was.  Brian and kelly were defending the epistimology of morals, which wasnt the problem.

I and many thiests can accept thiestic evolution and gauge that perhaps in Gods divine providence are knowledge of rights and wrongs could be a socially biological bi product.  But that was not the question the question was whether objective rights and wrongs exist?

 the athiest has 2 options he can take the utterly minescule minority of citizens and play the objective morals dont exist card or he can say objective morals do exist.  Now if objective morals do not exist and everything we know to be right or wrong are merely biproducts of an evolutionary process which encourages human flourishment, then why is rape surely considered wrong?

I mean from a biological evolution processrape could be beneficial to human flourishment if the appropriate specimans were forced to breed?  Interesting dichotomy the so called ethical athiets has himsefl in if he subscribes to subjectivity with respect to morals.  Now if objective morals do exist, then why?  Is the ethical athiest going to say that morals are some abstract objects that actually exist, hmm, sounds kind of irrational, because if " the good" existed " the good" itself could not be good because it is causally efete, wow were getting in to deeper and deeper athiest water, lol.  How do we know things are really right or really wrong, these beliefs can only be placed by a transcendent being of which whom's nature is the good which this being evokes to us, and by the way that statement in and of itself eliminates the eurphphro dilemna. 

I guess i could go on all night with this but i will leave you guys with this for now, hopefully i can get some truly rational reponses.

Translation: "I would rather stick my head in the sand than face reality. I love the idea of having an invisible friend with magical super powers and I will stick my fingers in my ears and stop thinking. Fantasy is more important than reality to me".

I have survived 15 years without fictional friends by any name, I think you can too, you just don't want to.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
askathiestssimplequestions

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

the kalam cosomological argument, the teological argument for the unfathomable fine tuning of our universe in its earliet conditions.  The incredibly early well preserved multiply attested texts explaining jesus' crucifixion, the empty tomb, and post mortem appearences.  Plus many more i could go on and on.  All of your refutations are merely paradigm preserving conjectures with no textual or evidential support. 

The KCA is refuted by the very definition of cause, which relies on time. As time exists only as an artifact of the universe, it did not exist "before" the universe. Therefore, the KCA is not only unnecessary, but makes no sense.

Second, the "unfathomable fine-tuning" is a ludicrous argument. Just because you cannot fathom something does not mean a god is necessary. First, the whole "fine-tuning" is a myth, similar to the myth of the flightless bumblebee. It came about because of some back-of-the-napkin analysis, modifying only one constant at a time. Later computer models show that, if multiple constants vary, you end up with an infinite combination of constants that result in interesting universes.

In any case, there are naturalistic explanations for "fine-tuning," if you wish to disregard the computer models that indicate it's a red herring. There is the evolutionary model proposed by Lee Smolin. There's the near-infinite M-brane model espoused by Hawking. There's the symmetry of the E8 Lie group model (my personal favorite of the bunch), which indicates the "fine-tuning" is algebraically necessary (that is, the universe must be fine-tuned due to mathematical constraints). So even if you disregard the fact that it isn't so unfathomable for our universe to support life, the teleological argument becomes an argument from incredulity and ignorance, with a dash of false dichotomy, and not convincing at all.

Which incredibly well-preserved multiply-attested texts explaining Jesus' (there is a caps key on your keyboard, you know) crucifixion exists? The earliest mentions of Jesus come decades after the fact, by Josephus, who mentions him but twice. (One of those mentions is generally considered a forgery.) So, citations, please.

 

If that's the best you can do, all you have is weak sauce. Very weak sauce.

Your arguments leave me unimpressed.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
askathiestssimplequestionsand

askathiestssimplequestions

andgetanswersthatblowtheisticargumentsoutofthewater


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

askathiestssimplequestions

andgetanswersthatblowtheisticargumentsoutofthewater

Lol!

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16458
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
askathiestssimplequestions

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

I use rape as an example because it is the perfect case of an event that i think most considered wrong that technically according to biological evolution could actually deemed beneficial to human evolution and flourishment.  Rape in terms of right and wrong creates quite the conundrum for the athiest who holds that objective rights and wrongs do exist. 

Do you know WHY rape is never condemned in the bible? Because in REALITY outside that book of myth most cultures used RAPE as a tactic of fear to keep rival tribes in submission. That is WHY God says to conquer rivals and take their women and girls as property. That is why Lot offers up his daughter's PUSSY as a sign of submission to god.

Rape exists, like cancer exists, like ecoli exists and like hurricanes exist. There is nothing magical about the good or bad in life. Rape however in all ancient religions WAS advocated as a form of control over rivals so all the god/s of these tribal cults would advocate it.

Rape as a form of control by the alpha male in a given group, still exists today. In the many ongoing wars in Africa today, it is used to give "what for" to force a rival tribe into submission. And most of that rape advocacy is done through religious advocacy. Prison rape exists in every country, again, as a means of survival by establishing dominance over others.

It is widely rejected in the secular west as a crime BY BOTH BELIEVERS AND ATHEISTS. The difference is that I reject rape, not for magical reasons, but for the same reason they happen naturally, we have a natural negative reaction to them, just like we have a natural negative reaction to ANYTHING that can physically harm us or cause us stress.

Bad in life is not the result of a fictional villain anymore than the good in life is the result of a fictional super hero. People rape for perfectly mundane ordinary psychological reasons. They do it to give themselves a sense of power over others. There is no magic to that BAD most rightfully negatively respond to.

It is no different than saying dogs exist. Some are cute and friendly and wouldn't harm a flea, and others are mean and nasty and would rip your head off if given the chance. Humans are no different. We are good and bad and we are not magically good or bad and we are all subject to the same human range of actions, good and bad.

There is no super villain or super hero doing any of this. There are stupid people who assign reality to magic and needlessly conflate it to comic book status and cross their fingers superstitiously in hopes to avoid the bad.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
I noticed Jean Chauvin has

I noticed Jean Chauvin has not commented on this thread. Of course he wouldn't want to contradict himself and let everyone think he has a more passive side.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I have

Brian37 wrote:

I have survived 15 years without fictional friends by any name, I think you can too, you just don't want to.

 

Oo, oo, are we counting?  Me too!  Just a minute - have to take off my shoes and socks - 27 years.

 

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

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

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


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: Brian37 wrote: I

cj wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I have survived 15 years without fictional friends by any name, I think you can too, you just don't want to.

 

Oo, oo, are we counting?  Me too!  Just a minute - have to take off my shoes and socks - 27 years.

 

Funny thing, I tried for 32 years to believe and less than a year ago gave up. Trying to live a christian type life (which I rarely did) always stressed me out. I say a lot of cuss words and I've made some bad decisions that at the time I didn't realize were going to end up hurting someone I loved. Got kinda sick of asking for forgiveness on a daily basis of probably 50,0000 times.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16458
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
askathiestssimplequestions

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

i stand firm that belief in athiesm is not rational merely emotional, and most arguments are based upon presuppositions of naturalism which cannot be proven as the only realm and must be taken on FAITH

You are trying to drag us down to your childish level of thinking.

But for "pretend's" sake, lets pretend atheists do have "faith" like believers do. Lets just pretend for a second.

My "faith"(cough cough) is still based on data and not naked assertions. I don't start with the presumption that a magical sky daddy exists and has magical super powers.

I know that the magician did not really saw the woman in half even if he didn't tell me how he did the trick. I've seen far to many dead bodies in war documentaries and in news clips and even in reality that tell me that when you dismember someone like that they are not going to magically come back.

I also know what a human brain looks like. I have seen them in medical films, documentaries, drivers ed films where they show the stupidity of the driver that gets them killed and dismembered. There is no coming back from that.

I have yet to see evidence of an invisible brain, much less one with magical super powers.

So if you want to hedge bets for your fantastic naked assertions and call that "faith" all you have done is take a sucker bet.

However my "faith" if you still childishly insist on calling empirical data "faith", will lead me to a doctor when I am ill and not a church.

If you really want to stand by your gullibility and call it "faith" then the next time you get a severe headache that doesn't go away for days, just pray to your invisible friend. If I get one, I'm going to have "faith" in a cat scan.

If you want to be an idiot and give up your mind and brain to an ancient myth written by the scientifically ignorant, then you might as well believe that the big orange ball in the sky is a thinking being like the Egyptians falsely proclaimed for 3,000 years.

I want no part of your idea of "faith", and whatever you want to call what atheists have is far better than what you have. I don't assume that pixies run my computer just because I cant build a mother board.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Brian37 wrote:I

cj wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I have survived 15 years without fictional friends by any name, I think you can too, you just don't want to.

Oo, oo, are we counting?  Me too!  Just a minute - have to take off my shoes and socks - 27 years.

I have 42 years experience not believing in gods.

 

Respectfully,

nigelTheBold

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16458
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

askathiestssimplequestions

andgetanswersthatblowtheisticargumentsoutofthewater

howdareyoupokefunofourguestsnameyouinsensitiveprick

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
rebecca.williamson

rebecca.williamson wrote:

Funny thing, I tried for 32 years to believe and less than a year ago gave up. Trying to live a christian type life (which I rarely did) always stressed me out. I say a lot of cuss words and I've made some bad decisions that at the time I didn't realize were going to end up hurting someone I loved. Got kinda sick of asking for forgiveness on a daily basis of probably 50,0000 times.

What pisses me off about the whole "asking forgiveness" thing pushed by Christianity is simply this: you're asking the wrong fucking person for forgiveness! If you've hurt someone, it is their forgiveness you should beg, not some fictitious character in a poorly-written fantasy. And if you haven't hurt anyone, there's no forgiveness to beg, and you shouldn't feel guilty in the first place.

I'm glad you gave up. It's a stupid religion that claims you were made broken, and insists you be whole. (I'm mangling Christopher Hitchens here.)

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16458
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:cj

nigelTheBold wrote:

cj wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I have survived 15 years without fictional friends by any name, I think you can too, you just don't want to.

Oo, oo, are we counting?  Me too!  Just a minute - have to take off my shoes and socks - 27 years.

I have 42 years experience not believing in gods.

 

Respectfully,

nigelTheBold

Ohh, look who is the bragger. Big man on campus. Well, I'll one up you dude.

I like shiny objects. THERE, not so special now are you?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16458
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Brian37 wrote:I

cj wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I have survived 15 years without fictional friends by any name, I think you can too, you just don't want to.

 

Oo, oo, are we counting?  Me too!  Just a minute - have to take off my shoes and socks - 27 years.

 

Not you too? I cant beat anyone. Oh wait, I am a Redskins fan. That explains it.

(Note to self: go back to playing with yarn, let the adults have their time)

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:nigelTheBold

Brian37 wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

I have 42 years experience not believing in gods.

 

Respectfully,

nigelTheBold

Ohh, look who is the bragger. Big man on campus. Well, I'll one up you dude.

I like shiny objects. THERE, not so special now are you?

What do you mean by "special?" I used to ride the short bus, if that's what you mean.

Now I just try to believe 7 impossible things before breakfast, and stop believing them by lunch. For instance, yesterday I convinced myself that believing in God is just like believing in naturalism. It's really easy if you do it right.

First, you just have to believe that what you can't see is just as true as what you can. Therefore, everything I don't see is true. Now, everything I can see is natural (almost by definition), and is the domain of science. As God is everything, minus that we see, God is everything I don't see. Since everything I don't see is true, God is true. (That's only 6 impossible things; I also believed I was a crocodile hunting zebras. Breakfast was interesting, if a bit messy. Who knew Cheerios had such an instinct for self-preservation?)

To stop believing, I had to realize how fucking stupid all that was.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16458
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Brian37

nigelTheBold wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

I have 42 years experience not believing in gods.

 

Respectfully,

nigelTheBold

Ohh, look who is the bragger. Big man on campus. Well, I'll one up you dude.

I like shiny objects. THERE, not so special now are you?

What do you mean by "special?" I used to ride the short bus, if that's what you mean.

Now I just try to believe 7 impossible things before breakfast, and stop believing them by lunch. For instance, yesterday I convinced myself that believing in God is just like believing in naturalism. It's really easy if you do it right.

First, you just have to believe that what you can't see is just as true as what you can. Therefore, everything I don't see is true. Now, everything I can see is natural (almost by definition), and is the domain of science. As God is everything, minus that we see, God is everything I don't see. Since everything I don't see is true, God is true. (That's only 6 impossible things; I also believed I was a crocodile hunting zebras. Breakfast was interesting, if a bit messy. Who knew Cheerios had such an instinct for self-preservation?)

To stop believing, I had to realize how fucking stupid all that was.

I was hoping you'd play along with my sarcasm. I hope it didn't blow up in my face.

I was sarcastically saying that I envy you in that you had more time being an atheist.

(note to self: employ emoticons to insure message intent)

Never mind me, I am just the Curly of atheists. HEY MO!

I too am damn glad I woke up and realized what bunk it all was before I die.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:cj

Brian37 wrote:

cj wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I have survived 15 years without fictional friends by any name, I think you can too, you just don't want to.

Oo, oo, are we counting?  Me too!  Just a minute - have to take off my shoes and socks - 27 years.

Not you too? I cant beat anyone. Oh wait, I am a Redskins fan. That explains it.

(Note to self: go back to playing with yarn, let the adults have their time)

 

Redskins......Redskins........is that a team of some sort?  You have mentioned them before, right?

Don't feel bad, I never could get the hang of cat's cradle.

 

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

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

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


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I was hoping

Brian37 wrote:

I was hoping you'd play along with my sarcasm. I hope it didn't blow up in my face.

I was sarcastically saying that I envy you in that you had more time being an atheist.

(note to self: employ emoticons to insure message intent)

Never mind me, I am just the Curly of atheists. HEY MO!

I too am damn glad I woke up and realized what bunk it all was before I die.

I thought I was playing along. I was much amused by your post. I just couldn't figure out a suitably-clever response, so I took it in a different direction altogether, which allowed me to satire the original post.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16458
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Brian37

nigelTheBold wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I was hoping you'd play along with my sarcasm. I hope it didn't blow up in my face.

I was sarcastically saying that I envy you in that you had more time being an atheist.

(note to self: employ emoticons to insure message intent)

Never mind me, I am just the Curly of atheists. HEY MO!

I too am damn glad I woke up and realized what bunk it all was before I die.

I thought I was playing along. I was much amused by your post. I just couldn't figure out a suitably-clever response, so I took it in a different direction altogether, which allowed me to satire the original post.

I kinda thought you were, but it was so over my head I wasn't sure if you took me seriously.

STOP THAT! I like shiny objects and I play with yarn, and Where's Waldo is my reading level. So adjust your humor to my level.

(Note to self:um Brian37, you know what infinite regress is, shush, don't let them know. Stop talking to yourself Brian37. No, you cant make me)

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I kinda

Brian37 wrote:

I kinda thought you were, but it was so over my head I wasn't sure if you took me seriously.

That's one possible interpretation. It could be I just wasn't funny. Of the two possibilities, I expect the second is most likely.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16458
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Brian37 wrote:cj

cj wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

cj wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I have survived 15 years without fictional friends by any name, I think you can too, you just don't want to.

Oo, oo, are we counting?  Me too!  Just a minute - have to take off my shoes and socks - 27 years.

Not you too? I cant beat anyone. Oh wait, I am a Redskins fan. That explains it.

(Note to self: go back to playing with yarn, let the adults have their time)

 

Redskins......Redskins........is that a team of some sort?  You have mentioned them before, right?

Don't feel bad, I never could get the hang of cat's cradle.

 

I've never mentioned the Redskins, NEVER! Ignore the parody avatar, that is merely a product of your imagination.

Listen to the sound of my voice(can you say "irony" ). You are getting very sleepy. You're eyes are getting heavy. Follow the swinging pendant. When I snap my fingers you wake up the Redskins will be Super Bowl Champions(that and you will cluck like a chicken).

*SNAP*

 5 wins and 7 loses. We can still win the Super Bowl. "JUST A FLESH WOUND, JUST A FLESH WOUND".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:

rebecca.williamson wrote:

Funny thing, I tried for 32 years to believe and less than a year ago gave up. Trying to live a christian type life (which I rarely did) always stressed me out. I say a lot of cuss words and I've made some bad decisions that at the time I didn't realize were going to end up hurting someone I loved. Got kinda sick of asking for forgiveness on a daily basis of probably 50,0000 times.

What pisses me off about the whole "asking forgiveness" thing pushed by Christianity is simply this: you're asking the wrong fucking person for forgiveness! If you've hurt someone, it is their forgiveness you should beg, not some fictitious character in a poorly-written fantasy. And if you haven't hurt anyone, there's no forgiveness to beg, and you shouldn't feel guilty in the first place.

I'm glad you gave up. It's a stupid religion that claims you were made broken, and insists you be whole. (I'm mangling Christopher Hitchens here.)

I'm glad too. The real funny thing is how it scared me to give up. I listened to my superstitious mom too much I think. You nailed it right on top of the head! Now I have so much less guilt than before because if I make loved ones upset, I have one person to get forgiveness and I hear them say it. I never heard god say "it's ok". It's like do you forgive me or not fucker? Lol

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Look at it this way Brian.

Look at it this way Brian. If the New Orleans Saints pulled it off, your redskins can too. The Saints games are hard For me to watch sometimes. This season I almost got up and kicked my tv off of the entertainment center in an attempt to kick the shit out Drew Brees for getting sacked so many times in one game. Wtf?!?!?!?!!

Edit: sorry, Redskins. Not my team lol.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:jcgadfly

Brian37 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

askathiestssimplequestions

andgetanswersthatblowtheisticargumentsoutofthewater

howdareyoupokefunofourguestsnameyouinsensitiveprick

justthekindofatheistkittenbbqingdickweediamthatshowirollsothere

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16458
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Brian37

jcgadfly wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

askathiestssimplequestions

andgetanswersthatblowtheisticargumentsoutofthewater

howdareyoupokefunofourguestsnameyouinsensitiveprick

justthekindofatheistkittenbbqingdickweediamthatshowirollsothere

yeabutyoucantfartafullsizedlamborghinioutofyourasslikeicansothere

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:jcgadfly

Brian37 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

askathiestssimplequestions

andgetanswersthatblowtheisticargumentsoutofthewater

howdareyoupokefunofourguestsnameyouinsensitiveprick

justthekindofatheistkittenbbqingdickweediamthatshowirollsothere

yeabutyoucantfartafullsizedlamborghinioutofyourasslikeicansothere

mehwhateveriwouldn'twanttohaveanassthatbiganywaysoundspainful

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16458
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Brian37

jcgadfly wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

askathiestssimplequestions

andgetanswersthatblowtheisticargumentsoutofthewater

howdareyoupokefunofourguestsnameyouinsensitiveprick

justthekindofatheistkittenbbqingdickweediamthatshowirollsothere

yeabutyoucantfartafullsizedlamborghinioutofyourasslikeicansothere

mehwhateveriwouldn'twanttohaveanassthatbiganywaysoundspainful

thisisgettingabsurdpolicesquadishandairplanishandloadedweaponishandspaceballishtopsecretishscarymovieish

I forgot which comedy movie had jokes in the credits

but this reminds me of

Best boy ....(whoever's real name was here)

Worst boy...Adolf Hitler

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:jcgadfly

Brian37 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

askathiestssimplequestions

andgetanswersthatblowtheisticargumentsoutofthewater

howdareyoupokefunofourguestsnameyouinsensitiveprick

justthekindofatheistkittenbbqingdickweediamthatshowirollsothere

yeabutyoucantfartafullsizedlamborghinioutofyourasslikeicansothere

mehwhateveriwouldn'twanttohaveanassthatbiganywaysoundspainful

thisisgettingabsurdpolicesquadishandairplanishandloadedweaponishandspaceballishtopsecretishscarymovieish

I forgot which comedy movie had jokes in the credits

but this reminds me of

Best boy ....(whoever's real name was here)

Worst boy...Adolf Hitler

That was Airplane!

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


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

thisisgettingabsurdpolicesquadishandairplanishandloadedweaponishandspaceballishtopsecretishscarymovieish

I forgot which comedy movie had jokes in the credits

but this reminds me of

Best boy ....(whoever's real name was here)

Worst boy...Adolf Hitler

Oh my dog! This is the most creative Godwin ever!

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16458
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Brian37

nigelTheBold wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

thisisgettingabsurdpolicesquadishandairplanishandloadedweaponishandspaceballishtopsecretishscarymovieish

I forgot which comedy movie had jokes in the credits

but this reminds me of

Best boy ....(whoever's real name was here)

Worst boy...Adolf Hitler

Oh my dog! This is the most creative Godwin ever!

That movie was so fucking funny. I loved it when the guy came into the control tower and opened up one of the radar screens and threw his laundry in it.

And at the end they show the taxi with the meter running.  Or the dualing parking announcers.

"Looks like I picked a bad time to stop doing barbitchuates(sp)"

Funny stuff. I have always been a fan of sight gag movies. You really have to be paying attention to everything to get all the jokes.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
not a single attempt at a

not a single attempt at a refutation to any of my arguments, just more of the usual colorful anti intellectual rhetoric, wow, well done.  More emotional self preserving based arguments, but this is the usual unfortuantely.  Im utterly astounded by your ignorance to ancient literature, its baffling.  " The New Testament" that we see today is merely a collection of individual books which is exactly how it is treated by ancient text historians, your objection about giving us something unbias outside hte new testament exposes your immense lack of knowledge on the subject.  In the first second and third centuries there was no complilation of texts called the new testament, just a multitude of individual books by authors from different regions writing very similiar descriptions of the life of jesus of nazareth.  There are more historical accounts of the crucifixion and empty tomb thand there are accounts of the palestianian ruler of jesus' day.  The sophisticated naturalists has tryed to write off the empty tomb with conjestures with zero evidence, like saying the disciples stole the body or jesus didnt actually die on the tomb, and or the disciples were hallucinating when they saw the post mordem jesus, but all of these fail because as previously stated there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO TEXTUAL EVIDENCE to support there weak claims.  But you make an even weaker argument by making the common mistake of thinking the new testament was written as one text, which not a singly historian treats them as.  In conclusion i think it is fair to say my arguments have not been refuted what so ever and that i am still waiting for a solely intellectual reason to support athiesm, an athiest is making a truth claim, the non exitence of god, hence they need positive eveidence to support this, to dat ei have seen ABSOLUTELY ZERO, like i said previously it takes AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF FAITH TO BE AN ATHIEST


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
Current science supports

Current science supports that all matter energy and even space time came in to being at the point of the big bang, so whatever caused the big bang must be timeless spaceless matterless, because it created all those things at that moment, i mean that is just a simple logical inference based on the evidence we have to day, in my studies in philosophy and math, i have all encountered to objects that fit those qualities, those are abstract numbers, as i said which are negated due to their causal effeteness, and an unembodied mind, a conscious, if you will, now im open to other options if someone could please come up with one i would love to investigate its plausibility.  Thats not what  i want to believe thats just all that i know of that is logically available


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
well unfortunately your

well unfortunately your sounding more agnostic and less like an atheist, which once again shows a lack of understanding.  Atheism is a truth claim, it is the claim of the non existence of God, atheists have zero intellectual evidential proof that God does not exist, so ultimately there stance is completely indicative of FAITH, unless you want to claim, agnosticism which is the belief that God may or may not exist and that we do not know, which is what much of your beliefs sound like.  I also find that atheists commonly fall to the we dont know line, to avoid FAITH, which is merely rhetorical nonsense to avoid answering tough questions, which are unanswerable given there naturalistic paradigm, Il admitt to my weakness as a speller, but resorting to personal ad hominens does nothing to help your cause, it actually strengthens mine because shows you have nothing in terms of refutations, merely playing the naturalism of the gaps card is weak


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
i love this more emotional

i love this more emotional arguments, more colorful rhetorical nonsense, atheists start their beliefs with presumption of a non existence of God and dismiss everything that points to a designer, not with evidence but nonevidential conjectures, its rather humorous, and once again the classic straw men get instituted by suggesting that theists dont believe in medical science which in no way shape or form is indicative of anything i said.  This is comical, im still waiting for a positive argument for atheism, that is not founded in emotional and that is deductive so that the premises follow the conclusion, not one has ever been postulated, until than i stand highly unconvinced by emotional rhetoric


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
Once again another weak

Once again another weak attempt to refute the objective grounding of morality, your poor but colorful example, merely lends to why do we care about the pain and suffering of others, in terms of competition and self preservation which are doctrinal with regards to evolution why is eliminating competitors for food and goods wrong? You havet a single answer that does not beg not beg the question or is merely an emotional response.  Once again the typical atheistic grab at strawmen, its sad but so consistant, creating an example assuming christianity postulates the idea that all moral codes are written in the bible when in the fact the bible states morality is written on the hearts of everyone believer and unbeliever alike.  Once again you fail because you speak of things you are ignorant to in terms of education.   Furthermore if God does not exist, why isnt the moral nihilist righ?, and we are nothing meant for nothing so hence we should care for nothing.  Why is this not the more plausible conclusion given the non existance of God.  Given the non existance of God, why are we as humans innately special, what makes us different from animals, when a lion kills another lion in a territorial battle, he doesnt murder it, he merely kills it for survival, why are we different, with respect to the presupposition of atheism? The atheist in terms of moral objectivity, if they believe in it are stuck between a rock and a hard place, if God does not exist as atheism suggests, why arent the moral nihilists correct?  Thats just another atheistic dichotomy with no good reason outside of emotional responses


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
so your not an atheist, your

so your not an atheist, your an agnostic, who is playing the naturalism of the gaps game, waiting and hoping FAITHFULLY that naturalism will ultimately save your ideaology.  Atheism is a truth claim, the allegid truth in the non existence of God, a truth claim has to be supported with positive eveidence, which atheism has zilch, nada, so untill they come up with something all you have is Faith


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The literary historical method

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

not a single attempt at a refutation to any of my arguments, just more of the usual colorful anti intellectual rhetoric, wow, well done.  More emotional self preserving based arguments, but this is the usual unfortuantely.  Im utterly astounded by your ignorance to ancient literature, its baffling.  " The New Testament" that we see today is merely a collection of individual books which is exactly how it is treated by ancient text historians, your objection about giving us something unbias outside hte new testament exposes your immense lack of knowledge on the subject.  In the first second and third centuries there was no complilation of texts called the new testament, just a multitude of individual books by authors from different regions writing very similiar descriptions of the life of jesus of nazareth.  There are more historical accounts of the crucifixion and empty tomb thand there are accounts of the palestianian ruler of jesus' day.  The sophisticated naturalists has tryed to write off the empty tomb with conjestures with zero evidence, like saying the disciples stole the body or jesus didnt actually die on the tomb, and or the disciples were hallucinating when they saw the post mordem jesus, but all of these fail because as previously stated there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO TEXTUAL EVIDENCE to support there weak claims.  But you make an even weaker argument by making the common mistake of thinking the new testament was written as one text, which not a singly historian treats them as.  In conclusion i think it is fair to say my arguments have not been refuted what so ever and that i am still waiting for a solely intellectual reason to support athiesm, an athiest is making a truth claim, the non exitence of god, hence they need positive eveidence to support this, to dat ei have seen ABSOLUTELY ZERO, like i said previously it takes AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF FAITH TO BE AN ATHIEST

 

CANNOT BE USED TO PROVE THE SUPERNATURAL.

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
No Simple

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

Current science supports that all matter energy and even space time came in to being at the point of the big bang, so whatever caused the big bang must be timeless spaceless matterless, because it created all those things at that moment, i mean that is just a simple logical inference based on the evidence we have to day, in my studies in philosophy and math, i have all encountered to objects that fit those qualities, those are abstract numbers, as i said which are negated due to their causal effeteness, and an unembodied mind, a conscious, if you will, now im open to other options if someone could please come up with one i would love to investigate its plausibility.  Thats not what  i want to believe thats just all that i know of that is logically available

 

The big bang is the model best supported by the empirical evidence. Is the big bang oscillating, cycling - we don't know. It's a model, not the absolute truth. What is logical is that YOU CANNOT POSIT ANY EVENTS OUTSIDE THIS SPACE TIME WITHOUT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS. Do you get it yet?

 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is just an argument from silence

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

well unfortunately your sounding more agnostic and less like an atheist, which once again shows a lack of understanding.  Atheism is a truth claim, it is the claim of the non existence of God, atheists have zero intellectual evidential proof that God does not exist, so ultimately there stance is completely indicative of FAITH, unless you want to claim, agnosticism which is the belief that God may or may not exist and that we do not know, which is what much of your beliefs sound like.  I also find that atheists commonly fall to the we dont know line, to avoid FAITH, which is merely rhetorical nonsense to avoid answering tough questions, which are unanswerable given there naturalistic paradigm, Il admitt to my weakness as a speller, but resorting to personal ad hominens does nothing to help your cause, it actually strengthens mine because shows you have nothing in terms of refutations, merely playing the naturalism of the gaps card is weak

 

Simple. It's fallacious and unsupportable. Most atheists take the position they do not believe in any gods on the available evidence without completely ruling out the possibility such a thing exists. And stop with the accusations of FAITH you numb nut. We don't have faith we have a position based on objective evidence. If you have some evidence that is not in the bible or contrived in your fevered wee head, please offer it up. 

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


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
The lack of a logical

The lack of a logical reasoning for why the cause must be greater than the effect, soes absolutely nothing to hinder the argument, and by merely positing further supposed theories, aka Quantum foam, as a potential alternate explanation, do nothing to refute the cosmological argument, from my uinderstanding Quantum foams validity is completetly reliant on an accurate theory of quantum gravity being estabished, so i would say responding with a mere possibility which is contigent upon the positing of a secondary theory, is a terrible refutation.  Furthermore my understanding of Quantum foam, is that it must exist in space time, so that does not provide any kind of objection.   Logically a good argument is not refuted by attempting to postulate alternative explanations, one must prove the greater plausibility of said explanation or idea, you have not presented a strong case for that.  My arguments still stand, but i will pose the question to you,as i have many others, I need a positive deductive claim for the non existence of God, for atheism to be a rational claim.  Atheism makes a truth claim and needs to provide eveidence to support said truth claim, which it has utterly failed to do on all levels, which makes atheism completely consistant with BLIND FAITH.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Simple

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

and we are nothing meant for nothing so hence we should care for nothing. 

 

Use you brain for once. Humans live in groups and we depend on each other to survive. Why's this so hard for you to understand. Look at today's societies. Where do the rapists and murderers live? Do they raise happy families and go bowling on sundays? No they are locked in cages. The human social values we call morals and you claim are some universal moral constant hand delivered by the lord are beneficial for the survival and reproduction of social animals. IT'S NOT FUCKING ROCKET SCIENCE.

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Go and pray for a dictionary

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

so your not an atheist, your an agnostic, who is playing the naturalism of the gaps game, waiting and hoping FAITHFULLY that naturalism will ultimately save your ideaology.  Atheism is a truth claim, the allegid truth in the non existence of God, a truth claim has to be supported with positive eveidence, which atheism has zilch, nada, so untill they come up with something all you have is Faith

 

Simple. Usually I would not criticize a chap's spelling and syntax but you are butcher of the language. I can't help believing your poor spelling is a ham job and you are a POE. No one is as docile as you seem to be.

 

 

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


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
the statement of why does

the statement of why does this being has to be powerful, is absurd whith respect to the majesty of the universe, i dont even need to respond to that, i would consider that a properly basic belief.  With respect to the alternative options for said creator, please posit one, i would love to investigate another option, i havent heard of another one that fits that description, and since most atheists ascribe to experience and reason, that is exactly what i have done with that postulation.  The positive evidence for premise one, lies in the fact that the universe based upon observations, is expanding as an average, merely reverse the track and you reach a singularity of nothing, which is what current science suggests, premise 2 is obvious, i dont know of anything other then posited physics particals which there are not actual evidence for like quarks which can come in to being on their own, or sub atomc particlles which exist in a vaccuum which brings them in to being, i would once again merely rely on experience and reason to prove premise 2, so logically the conclusion follows.  I will wait for you to refute my premises or the argument.


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
oooh not quite the knock

oooh not quite the knock down argument you thought it was, first of all a being can be causally prior without being temporally prior, with repect to the beginning of spacetime, so your suggestion isnt a sound refutation.  Furthermore it is important to note why hawkins and others are bent on explaining away fine tuning becaue it destroys naturalism.  Now on M theory, which is only valid if there are exactly 11 dimensions in the universe which as far as current science suggests is unprovable, and furthermore perpetuates a geometric fine tuning of the universe, why 11 dimensions exactly, why not 12 or 20? hmmm.  Wowand more ignorance with respect to disregarding the new testament texts, im utterly shocked at the lack of knowledege of ancient texts from atheists, becuase the new testament texts are compilation of individual books, telling the life of Jesus, that were place together in the third century, wow im astounded.  Paul who wrote the book of Corinthians, which has been dated to within 5 years of the crucifixion, gives an account of the crucifixion and empty tomb, so your still in big trouble with that one.

 

Still not a single logical, intellectually sound refutation.