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.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
askathiestssimplequestions

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

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.

The lack of any positive evidence pointing specifically to a God-like being means that the KCA in no way proves such a God.

All it does is attempt to argue from analogy that the Universe 'must' have a cause since we seem to see 'causes' in our universe, but there are things like radioactive decay whose timing has no cause, they decay in a purely random manner.

We do not have to refute a God, that is not science, we merely have to show we have one or more alternative and no less plausible explanations that posit fewer major assumptions and we are justified in running with them, as being worthy of further study.

NOTHING about the God hypothesis is remotely established with any significant level of confidence, at least partly to it being based on assumptions beyond anything actually established , not really verifiable at all, IOW the 'supernatural', whereas the science-based hypotheses, while not confirmable at this time, are all based on extrapolation from firmly established theories.

Done.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
Typical atheist rhetoric,

Typical atheist rhetoric, lets posit strawmen, aka Christians beleive some super villain is responsible for all the wrong and not us humans  This once again shows an utter lack of theological knowledge, which further pushes the question, that atheism is anti-intellectual and merely emotional hence it is irrational.  I understand colorful rhetoric is the only defense for ther undefendable.  Once again i am appauled by how people dont get the argument, im not suggesting how we have decided what is right and wrong, im saying the fact that objective rights and wrongs do really exist, and they must be grounded in a transcendant being.  Why do we believe some things are really good like love or really wrong like the holocaust or the crusades or slavery.  If God does not exist and all we are left with is atheism, which is only given inteellectual grounds through evolution, why is anything wrong?  Why isnt the moral nihisit correct?  If true feelings of good and wrong exist objectively, which i certainly believe they do, it is impossible to beleive they exist as constructs of socio biological eveolution, because clearly eugenics is an example of something that could be deemed beneficial with respect to human eveolution, why do we know that is wrong?  You will probably say because we know harming others is wrong, but that doesnt refute the claim im making.  Im saying why do we know that harming others is objectively wrong? 

Honestly guys your objections to the moral argument have been very weak as a whole


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
your quote is monumentally

your quote is monumentally anti intellectual, you are essentially suggesting the thing you supposedly hate, beginning with a conclusion and working backwards, thats not investigation or study, thats agenda driven nonsense, the fact that is your quote explains some of your assumptions


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
your quote is monumentally

your quote is monumentally anti intellectual, you are essentially suggesting the thing you supposedly hate, beginning with a conclusion and working backwards, thats not investigation or study, thats agenda driven nonsense, the fact that is your quote explains some of your assumptions


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
your quote is monumentally

your quote is monumentally anti intellectual, you are essentially suggesting the thing you supposedly hate, beginning with a conclusion and working backwards, thats not investigation or study, thats agenda driven nonsense, the fact that is your quote explains some of your assumptions


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
wow i think you are brain

wow i think you are brain dead, you dont even know what atheism is and still have not formaulated a postive argument in support of your FAITH, which i find disturbing and very hypocritical.  Once againn the bible claim, i realize im dealing with a non intellectual who reacts out of emotion, Bible by defintion is collection of books,THE BIBLE WE HAVE TODAY IS NOT WHAT WAS BEING PASSED AROUND IN THE FIRST AND SECOND AND THIRD CENURIES, MERELY INIVIDUAL BOOKS WRITTEN BY INDIVIDUAL AUTHORS.  I hope some day that close minded brain of yours will be able to accept that FACT.  Essentially your asking for myseff to prove my claim with secondary source and drop my PRIMARY SOURCES, wow how ridiculous


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
i will accept your spelling

i will accept your spelling criticisms as a signal of defeat and more of the typical emotional atheist response, and sadly you still fail to understand the moral argument


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
you have failed again, if

you have failed again, if the universe had a cause the cause itself must be timeless spaceless and matterless, which all philosophy concludes is and unembodied mind or conscious , so to say that is not positive support for an inteligent desginer utterly disregards those facts.

Radioactive decay is a poor example, radio active decay is a contingent  process not a matter of coming in to being, so that is a false analogy.

Positing alternative explanations does not suggest the God hypothesis is incorrect and the manner of having less major assumptions is completely subjective and in fact not scientific, so that doesnt increase said alternatives greater plausibility.

Most of your extrapolations from these firmly established theories have counter arguments of equakl plausibility, and the theist could easily infer with great confidence that naturalism has become naturalism of the gaps with the ardent efforts of scientist to explain the unexplainable by positing things like quarks and such. 

Ultimately in the end you have a great deal of Faith that is subject to your presuppositions which force you to  form extrapolations that preserve your paradigm, there is absolutley no getting around that FACT

 


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

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

wow i think you are brain dead, you dont even know what atheism is and still have not formaulated a postive argument in support of your FAITH, which i find disturbing and very hypocritical.  Once againn the bible claim, i realize im dealing with a non intellectual who reacts out of emotion, Bible by defintion is collection of books,THE BIBLE WE HAVE TODAY IS NOT WHAT WAS BEING PASSED AROUND IN THE FIRST AND SECOND AND THIRD CENURIES, MERELY INIVIDUAL BOOKS WRITTEN BY INDIVIDUAL AUTHORS.  I hope some day that close minded brain of yours will be able to accept that FACT.  Essentially your asking for myseff to prove my claim with secondary source and drop my PRIMARY SOURCES, wow how ridiculous

The bible is a compilation of assertions about reality that have no basis in fact. Prove these assertions on the basis of facts about physical reality that are not arguments from silence or arguments from complexity. Your use of the bible as proof of the veracity of your otherwise unsupported claims is a circular argument. It does not matter how many bookshelves of naked assertions you throw at us, these are not proven to contain any verfiable facts about the nature of the universe. Please provide some.

 

 

 

 

"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
Sorry to insult your spelling, Simple.

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

i will accept your spelling criticisms as a signal of defeat and more of the typical emotional atheist response, and sadly you still fail to understand the moral argument

 

It's bad spelling and I suspect fake bad spelling on account of its inconsistency but no matter. Anyway, Rather than play a game of is not/is too, I have a question.

Are children born with a functioning understanding of morality?

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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
If I have failed than I have

If I have failed than I have a lot in common with the KCA.

You and Craig can only assert that such a being exists because you need it for this argument to work. Positing the existence of the thing you are trying to prove exists is a fallacy.

To top it all off, neither of you can do that right. You can't tell me what something is by listing off all the things it's not.

Presuppositions are what kill your argument - stop projecting your issue on us.

 

"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


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 This post is full of

 This post is full of emotion and highly anti-intellectual.  I am whatever you say I am, if I wasn't then why would I say I am.

 

 


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

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

you have failed again, if the universe had a cause the cause itself must be timeless spaceless and matterless, which all philosophy concludes is and unembodied mind or conscious , so to say that is not positive support for an inteligent desginer utterly disregards those facts.

"All philosophy concludes." Really? Name one philosophy (other than the KCA, which is being refuted) that posits it must be an "unembodied (sic)  mind or conscious (sic)". Just one. I can name several that do not (scientific naturalism, for instance). That, Sir, makes you a liar, or an ignorant lout. Either way, you are intellectually dishonest.

Quote:
Radioactive decay is a poor example, radio active decay is a contingent  process not a matter of coming in to being, so that is a false analogy.

Here's a better example: virtual particle pairs. They pop in and out of existence all the fucking time.

Quote:
Positing alternative explanations does not suggest the God hypothesis is incorrect and the manner of having less major assumptions is completely subjective and in fact not scientific, so that doesnt increase said alternatives greater plausibility.

Uhm, what are you talking about? The introduction of the supernatural is, at best, an hypothesis with no support. The alternatives I have mentioned have theoretical support, and in some cases, limited experimental support. That scientifically puts them on firmer ground than any God hypothesis.

Second, by introducing the supernatural, you are multiplying entities unnecessarily. Occam's razor pretty much eliminates God philosophically. So again, your assertion of God fails both on scientific and philosophic principles.

Quote:
Most of your extrapolations from these firmly established theories have counter arguments of equakl plausibility, and the theist could easily infer with great confidence that naturalism has become naturalism of the gaps with the ardent efforts of scientist to explain the unexplainable by positing things like quarks and such.

Really? You're going to go with that?

You do realize that particle physics and the standard nuclear model have been deductively tested, correct? That there is actual evidence for things like quarks and such? That things like the fission and fusion bombs and nuclear power plants rely on the standard nuclear model? Oh! Wait. They might also rely on prayer. If it wasn't for the dozens of priests employed to constantly pray at the power plants across the globe, none of them would work. AmIright?

"Naturalism of the gaps." I am laughing my firm hairy ass off right now, in genuine humor.

Quote:
Ultimately in the end you have a great deal of Faith that is subject to your presuppositions which force you to  form extrapolations that preserve your paradigm, there is absolutley no getting around that FACT

You keep telling yourself that, Chief. If it helps you sleep at night, if it makes you feel better about yourself, just keep on lying to yourself. I know it's gotta hurt that the the actual evidence presented by reality closely aligns with scientific models, while completely ignoring your favorite fantasies. If self-delusion is the balm that helps you make it through the day, then you go for it.

"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: 16451
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
askathiestssimplequestions

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

you have failed again, if the universe had a cause the cause itself must be timeless spaceless and matterless, which all philosophy concludes is and unembodied mind or conscious , so to say that is not positive support for an inteligent desginer utterly disregards those facts.

Radioactive decay is a poor example, radio active decay is a contingent  process not a matter of coming in to being, so that is a false analogy.

Positing alternative explanations does not suggest the God hypothesis is incorrect and the manner of having less major assumptions is completely subjective and in fact not scientific, so that doesnt increase said alternatives greater plausibility.

Most of your extrapolations from these firmly established theories have counter arguments of equakl plausibility, and the theist could easily infer with great confidence that naturalism has become naturalism of the gaps with the ardent efforts of scientist to explain the unexplainable by positing things like quarks and such. 

Ultimately in the end you have a great deal of Faith that is subject to your presuppositions which force you to  form extrapolations that preserve your paradigm, there is absolutley no getting around that FACT

 

Translation: "How do you know you wouldn't like smoking crack unless you try it?"

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

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

not a single attempt at a refutation to any of my arguments, <....... blah, blah, yada, yada>

 

If you had any arguments, maybe someone would take the time to refute them.

 

-- 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.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Naturalism of the Gaps"

"Naturalism of the Gaps" ??

Are you insane? (Yes)

Gaps in what? For that to even start to make sense, you must be admitting gaps in Theistic 'explanations'....

Add that to the insanity of telling life-long Atheists, plus those who have emerged from many years of deep commitment to Religious doctrines whose monumental and fundamental flaws eventually failed to withstand the force of rationality and empirical evidence, that we don't even 'know what atheism is".

WTF are we then???

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
it's kinda hard to show much

it's kinda hard to show much intellect when I don't even know who you are talking to. Quote button or at an @ with a name of who you are speaking to. GAH!

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Looks like we won't have any

Looks like we won't have any more serious conversations with this guy either.

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:
you have failed again, if the universe had a cause the cause itself must be timeless spaceless and matterless,

Sort of. There could still be properties analogous to time, space, and matter. It just wouldn't be of this universe.

Quote:
which all philosophy concludes is and unembodied mind or conscious ,

Uh, no. You can't just assert that. Please justify with arguments and/or evidence.

What does "all philosophy" even mean? It's certainly not all philosophers, and it certainly doesn't follow from the previous premise.

Quote:
so to say that is not positive support for an inteligent desginer utterly disregards those facts.

Explain how it is "positive support."

Quote:
and the manner of having less major assumptions is completely subjective

No, it's not. Less assumptions is less assumptions.

Quote:
and in fact not scientific,

It's used by scientists in various fields. It's even a factor in mathematical models.

What's not scientific about it?

Quote:
so that doesnt increase said alternatives greater plausibility.

Of course not. It doesn't increase or decrease the plausibility of anything. It makes a general rule about the plausibility that each explanation already has.

Quote:
and the theist could easily infer with great confidence that naturalism has become naturalism of the gaps

Lol.  

All of our understanding of the natural world comes from science. Any "gaps" are gaps left by science.

What does naturalism have to do with it? Naturalism is not a method of obtaining knowledge. 

Quote:
with the ardent efforts of scientist to explain the unexplainable by positing things like quarks and such.

Oh? So, you know that particle physics is unexplainable? How do you know that?

There is a pretty healthy amount of empirical evidence for quarks.

Quote:
Ultimately in the end you have a great deal of Faith

No.

Quote:
that is subject to your presuppositions

Which are?

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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Troll

I have pretty much decided that askatheistsimplequestions is either extremely schizophrenic, high on some sort of illegal drug or just having fun with us. But it could be a combination of all three. Granted, this is a mere hypothesis on my part and not entirely proven. I just wanted to clear that up before I get accused of being irrational.

 

I do think, rather than use the handle askatheistsimplequestions, a better screen name would be keepmakingstupidstatementsinmultipleposts.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Seems to be trying the

Seems to be trying the simplistic strategy of treating Atheism as if it had all the flaws of Theism, and throwing all the accusations we make about Theism back at us to see how we react.

The clearest example of this, and the most glaring fail, was "naturalism of the gaps".

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:

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.

 

wow i cant beleive you are completely ignorant to the fact that these so calles toe theories are immensely complex and dont advanve the argument and utterly rendored useless.  Just keep your hand in the sand, start with conclusions and work backwards to fill in the gaps in your naturalism, to preserve your identity, which is evidenced by your ridiculously anti intellectual quote you have listed.  By the way  Lisi the man whose alter you worship with his faulty highly denounced e8 theory doesnt even believ his own theory is accurate and he thinks that his inaccurate theory is better than string theory.  The most complet toe theory we have is m theory and that has more holes and gaps that need to be filled in than i can list, hence it doesnt advance the argument so it is not plausible, FINE TUNING IS HERE TO STAY.

 


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
i would say, from the

i would say, from the distinctions your are making about beliefs, you are agnostic, playing the many people have fallen from religious beliefs to athiesm is incrediibally weak, because i know of many intellectual giants that have elevated from atheism to theism, hmmm like CS LEWIS for example, so that game is a non starter.  But nice try


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
That would be

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

wow i cant beleive you are completely ignorant to the fact that these so calles toe theories are immensely complex and dont advanve the argument and utterly rendored useless.  Just keep your hand in the sand, start with conclusions and work backwards to fill in the gaps in your naturalism, to preserve your identity, which is evidenced by your ridiculously anti intellectual quote you have listed.  By the way  Lisi the man whose alter you worship with his faulty highly denounced e8 theory doesnt even believ his own theory is accurate and he thinks that his inaccurate theory is better than string theory.  The most complet toe theory we have is m theory and that has more holes and gaps that need to be filled in than i can list, hence it doesnt advance the argument so it is not plausible, FINE TUNING IS HERE TO STAY.

 

Advance is spelled a d v a n c e

rendered is spelled r e n d e  r e d

There is no naturalism gaps theory, what an utterly stupid remark to make.

altar is spelled a l t a r

believe is spelled b e l i e v e

complete is spelled c o m p l e t e

Capital letters are meant for the beginning of each and every sentence.

Commas are a good place to break up sentences where people can read them better, any english teacher should have taught you that.

The letter i needs to be capitalized into I, if you are referring to yourself in these sentences.

As for the rest of your post : It is a whole bunch of unproven assertions, just like everything else that you have put on here so far.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Dan Barker

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

i would say, from the distinctions your are making about beliefs, you are agnostic, playing the many people have fallen from religious beliefs to athiesm is incrediibally weak, because i know of many intellectual giants that have elevated from atheism to theism, hmmm like CS LEWIS for example, so that game is a non starter.  But nice try

Ever heard of Dan Barker ? The evangelical minister that became an atheist and now leads the Freedom from religion foundation.

Ever heard of Joseph McCabe ? The priest that became an atheist writer an activist ?

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
hmmm im still waiting for

hmmm im still waiting for someone to list a better simpler explanation for the unembodied mind explanation, merely saying we dont that that is the only option is not good enough my agnostic friends.  Furthermore my statement about quantum foam is exactly where the cutting edge of modern science stands, to deny that is insanity.  Also your favorite toe theory is the highly denounced e8 lie group which shows you certainly filter what science you will ascribe to, which diminishes your bias oppinion on matters of science.  in addition virtual partical pairs are produced within vaccums byuncertainity fluctuations, so there explains there potential existence, so NICE TRY, KEEP BELIEVING.  IM shocked at how far behind this whole site is in terms of current science and the ability to form logically cohherent refutations and arguments.  I have soundly refuted nearly everyones allegid arguments here, if this is the best FAITHEISM has to offer, its is a failing BELIEF set, but i am not mad, because i would compare it to a blind man walking in to a wall over and over again, i wouldnt say hey that guy is dumb, i would feel sorry for that blind guy


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

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

wow i cant beleive you are completely ignorant to the fact that these so calles toe theories are immensely complex and dont advanve the argument and utterly rendored useless.  Just keep your hand in the sand, start with conclusions and work backwards to fill in the gaps in your naturalism, to preserve your identity, which is evidenced by your ridiculously anti intellectual quote you have listed.  By the way  Lisi the man whose alter you worship with his faulty highly denounced e8 theory doesnt even believ his own theory is accurate and he thinks that his inaccurate theory is better than string theory.  The most complet toe theory we have is m theory and that has more holes and gaps that need to be filled in than i can list, hence it doesnt advance the argument so it is not plausible, FINE TUNING IS HERE TO STAY.

Dude! When did I mention a TOE? (Okay, I did mention the E8 Lie group model, which is as close to a TOE as I've gotten.) I'm just talkin' about the fucking common nuclear model, which you tried to take a shit on. Now you're trying to equivocate!

Make up your fucking mind. Are we talking about quarks, or about cutting-edge quantum theory? Really. Just pick a single fucking topic and stick with it, rather than jumping all over the fucking place trying to prove ... something. I'm not even sure what. You can't pick a story and stick with it, so there's nothing really to talk about.

And naturalism starts with observation, and moves forward. That is in complete stark contrast to the KCA, or the strong anthropic principle, which start with God, and work backward. (Which is what you seem to be doing, Chief.)

"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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Not a single

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. 

Hmm, well look at this. The internet troll, who claims he has had no refutations to his arguments, is making more assertions. Unproven assertions without one single reason to back up his claims.

Wonder why this should not come as a surprise to anyone ?

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


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

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

hmmm im still waiting for someone to list a better simpler explanation for the unembodied mind explanation, merely saying we dont that that is the only option is not good enough my agnostic friends.  Furthermore my statement about quantum foam is exactly where the cutting edge of modern science stands, to deny that is insanity.  Also your favorite toe theory is the highly denounced e8 lie group which shows you certainly filter what science you will ascribe to, which diminishes your bias oppinion on matters of science.  in addition virtual partical pairs are produced within vaccums byuncertainity fluctuations, so there explains there potential existence, so NICE TRY, KEEP BELIEVING.  IM shocked at how far behind this whole site is in terms of current science and the ability to form logically cohherent refutations and arguments.  I have soundly refuted nearly everyones allegid arguments here, if this is the best FAITHEISM has to offer, its is a failing BELIEF set, but i am not mad, because i would compare it to a blind man walking in to a wall over and over again, i wouldnt say hey that guy is dumb, i would feel sorry for that blind guy

Point out where the E8 lie group is "denounced." Just one place. I mean, other than your assertion. Give me a peer-reviewed paper.

But feel free to continue hypothesizing something for which there is no fucking evidence: the supernatural. It's gotta make you feel better at night, when you're sleepless in your bed.

"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


askathiestssimp...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-12-03
User is offlineOffline
wow what an amazing example

wow what an amazing example these last couple of days , truly was of the complete lack of intellectual arguments for atheism, all merely emotional conjectures, this site should be called the emotional response squad, or the incoherrent response squad, or the spelling and grammar squad because those are some things you are good at, lol, but on a serious note, im still very unimpressed with all attempts, il come back and check to see if anyone can formulate a proper argument to refute anything ive said with the ease that i have refuted all of these weak attempts( e8, radio active decay, virtual particle pairs, unreliability of NT documents, the moral argument from neccasity, i could go on) lol what a joke


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Meh actually

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

i will accept your spelling criticisms as a signal of defeat and more of the typical emotional atheist response, and sadly you still fail to understand the moral argument

 

Meh, actually it is just a bit annoying to read someone that is writing on a level of a small child. .Of course, this is the internet and you could be a small child. If so, I can only hope that your parents take the computer away from you fairly soon.

Or at least, spend time on a website where adults like to have discussions.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


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

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

wow what an amazing example these last couple of days , truly was of the complete lack of intellectual arguments for atheism, all merely emotional conjectures, this site should be called the emotional response squad, or the incoherrent response squad, or the spelling and grammar squad because those are some things you are good at, lol, but on a serious note, im still very unimpressed with all attempts, il come back and check to see if anyone can formulate a proper argument to refute anything ive said with the ease that i have refuted all of these weak attempts( e8, radio active decay, virtual particle pairs, unreliability of NT documents, the moral argument from neccasity, i could go on) lol what a joke

And you have intellectual arguments for theism? Let's hear 'em.

I'm very unimpressed with anything you've given. You've not been able to refute anything thrown at you (other than to assert they aren't valid). Nothing you've asserted is backed by evidence, while we have presented actual (y'know) evidence. At best, you are an example of this quote:

Paul Valéry wrote:
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us.

You've given a lot of assertions, but nothing with meat to back it up. You are all sizzle, and no steak.

 

"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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
askathiestssimplequestions

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

wow what an amazing example these last couple of days , truly was of the complete lack of intellectual arguments for atheism, all merely emotional conjectures, this site should be called the emotional response squad, or the incoherrent response squad, or the spelling and grammar squad because those are some things you are good at, lol, but on a serious note, im still very unimpressed with all attempts, il come back and check to see if anyone can formulate a proper argument to refute anything ive said with the ease that i have refuted all of these weak attempts( e8, radio active decay, virtual particle pairs, unreliability of NT documents, the moral argument from neccasity, i could go on) lol what a joke

IHmm, this particular brand of rebuttal has gotten very repetitive. First you put forth some nonsense, then the nonsense gets refuted. Then you change the subject and put forth even more nonsense, which gets refuted. Then you change the subject again and put forth even MORE nonsense, which gets refuted. THEN, you change tactics and start whining about all of these emotional responses to your nonsense claims and then you start the whole thing over again.

If you are not as stupid as you appear, then I will say that you are just being purposely obtuse.

If you are as stupid as you appear, then there is no hope for you.

BTW :

incoherent is spelled i n c o h e r e n t

necessity is spelled n e c e s s i t y

I put forth a bunch of arguments at the beginning, in which you never answered. You merely continued to whine about emotional responses and change the subject. So please do me a favor and don't come back until these drugs you are on wear off, your psychiatrist starts treating you for your mental disorders, or until your school teacher can show you something about grammar and debate.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Lol. We should have terms

Lol.

We should have terms describing how closed-minded people eventually cease all attempts at communication and just repeatedly assert that they've demolished every argument and position put forth by every person they talked to.

The rule that this eventually always happens could be called, "The Jean Law." The point at which it happens could be called, "The Jean Threshold?" It could be a nice Internet adage, like Poe's Law or Godwin's Law.  

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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Even in my short time here

Even in my short time here, I have noticed an odd pattern :

Theist introduces themselves to the board, theist says that they would like to hear some Atheist answers on things.

Theist puts forth absurd notions.

Atheists answer notions, atheist welcome theist aboard, atheists then point out the arguments

Theists get a little irritated and say that this is not true, that SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE prove them right.

Atheists ask for evidence

Theists then has no evidence but more assertions,

Atheists debunk assertions and ask for evidence

Theists then gets a little irritable. THE ONLY PROOF OF ANY OF THIS IS THAT THERE IS NO PROOF AND THAT IS ALL THAT THERE IS TO IT

Atheists debunk

Theists rebuts : I AM ENTITLED TO MY BELIEF AND YOU CAN NOT TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME. JUST BECAUSE YOUR LIVES ARE EMPTY DOES NOT MAKE MINE

Atheists grow annoyed.

Theists turn into drama queen and the thread goes downhill from there .

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Lol.We

butterbattle wrote:

Lol.

We should have terms describing how closed-minded people eventually cease all attempts at communication and just repeatedly assert that they've demolished every argument and position put forth by every person they talked to.

The rule that this eventually always happens could be called, "The Jean Law." The point at which it happens could be called, "The Jean Threshold?" It could be a nice Internet adage, like Poe's Law or Godwin's Law.  

 

Very appropriate.  I can't think of anything better than "The Jean Threshold".

 

-- 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.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Nice idea, Butter.

butterbattle wrote:

Lol.

We should have terms describing how closed-minded people eventually cease all attempts at communication and just repeatedly assert that they've demolished every argument and position put forth by every person they talked to.

The rule that this eventually always happens could be called, "The Jean Law." The point at which it happens could be called, "The Jean Threshold?" It could be a nice Internet adage, like Poe's Law or Godwin's Law.  

 

I'd support the recognition of any such threshold. Perhaps we could call it Chauvinism...

 

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


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
askathiestssimplequestions

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

wow what an amazing example these last couple of days , truly was of the complete lack of intellectual arguments for atheism, all merely emotional conjectures, this site should be called the emotional response squad, or the incoherrent response squad, or the spelling and grammar squad because those are some things you are good at, lol, but on a serious note, im still very unimpressed with all attempts, il come back and check to see if anyone can formulate a proper argument to refute anything ive said with the ease that i have refuted all of these weak attempts( e8, radio active decay, virtual particle pairs, unreliability of NT documents, the moral argument from neccasity, i could go on) lol what a joke

I suppose I could make a haughty remark such as "I haven't seen as much as a coherrnt response from you..."  Self-proclaiming oneself to have "refuted" the arguments is perhaps delusional...Why can't I say the same for your arguments? This is a red herring, and does little for your credibility... all you are doing is reinforcing what many atheists believe about theist...that they are delusional--perhaps more so than just their belief in a god.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


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

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

wow what an amazing example these last couple of days , truly was of the complete lack of intellectual arguments for atheism, all merely emotional conjectures, this site should be called the emotional response squad, or the incoherrent response squad, or the spelling and grammar squad because those are some things you are good at, lol, but on a serious note, im still very unimpressed with all attempts, il come back and check to see if anyone can formulate a proper argument to refute anything ive said with the ease that i have refuted all of these weak attempts( e8, radio active decay, virtual particle pairs, unreliability of NT documents, the moral argument from neccasity, i could go on) lol what a joke

 

This

 Right there, I do believe proves this is Jean. You already made that statement about the emotional response squad ( I think but I will check tomorrow ) in one of your many degrading threads. Not to mention you're starting to call people ignorant. When are the questions about morals, liberals and comments about blood on people going start? Oh and let me guess, you're gonna pray for me and AE, right? Hows that for proper argument for refuting you? Fucking liar! You can't even be honest that this and Jean are in fact the same person. And you wonder why some here feel christains are deceitful people?

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
I don't thin this is Jean

I don't thin this is Jean but I do notice this annoying tendency for theists to want atheists to argue their case for them as well as laying out ours. Then they can post some drivel about "Look, you guys are fighting amongst yourselves".

"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


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Ok, this is not Jean, it is

Ok, this is not Jean, it is Jeans' clone!  It is a miracle that proves the existence of God.  If God does not exist, there would be no Jean and his clones.

 

 

 


OntologicalArgument (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I watched that

I watched that debate. 

Brian Sapient confused the third law of thermodynamics with the first.  He said that we have "real science" to lend credence to the idea that matter and energy is eternal.  However, "real science", as he put it, does not lend any such credence to this idea. It is not implicit in the first law of thermodynamics that matter is eternal. The law simply implies that the total amount does not change. In fact, the law itself may be viewed as no more than just a mathematical equation, which says that the change in energy of an isolated system is equal to the difference between the heat added to it and the work done by it. An isolated system can be understood as a set of physical objects whereby the exchange of matter and energy can only take place within the set. Heat and work are the two ways in which energy is transferred. According to the law of conservation of energy, then, as energy is transferred due to heat and work, the change in the amount of energy, within the isolated system where the operations take place, will always equal zero.  Whether or not the universe itself shall be treated as an isolated system remains an open question at this time, but the main point here is that one cannot infer alone from the law of conservation of energy that the universe is eternal. The law itself stipulates that only within an isolated system does the total amount of energy remain fixed. This alone does not tell us that the system where the energy exists has no origin. We can only say that based on our observations thus far, the sum total of energy, which may or may not have been created, has remained constant.

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
OntologicalArgument wrote:I

OntologicalArgument wrote:

I watched that debate. 

Brian Sapient confused the third law of thermodynamics with the first.  He said that we have "real science" to lend credence to the idea that matter and energy is eternal.  However, "real science", as he put it, does not lend any such credence to this idea. It is not implicit in the first law of thermodynamics that matter is eternal. The law simply implies that the total amount does not change. In fact, the law itself may be viewed as no more than just a mathematical equation, which says that the change in energy of an isolated system is equal to the difference between the heat added to it and the work done by it. An isolated system can be understood as a set of physical objects whereby the exchange of matter and energy can only take place within the set. Heat and work are the two ways in which energy is transferred. According to the law of conservation of energy, then, as energy is transferred due to heat and work, the change in the amount of energy, within the isolated system where the operations take place, will always equal zero.  Whether or not the universe itself shall be treated as an isolated system remains an open question at this time, but the main point here is that one cannot infer alone from the law of conservation of energy that the universe is eternal. The law itself stipulates that only within an isolated system does the total amount of energy remain fixed. This alone does not tell us that the system where the energy exists has no origin. We can only say that based on our observations thus far, the sum total of energy, which may or may not have been created, has remained constant.

You have totally scrambled the first and second laws of thermodynamics together.

The first law directly implies that the sum of energy plus the energy equivalent of matter must be constant, therefore eternal.

You then went straight into propositions from the second law, which, in its original form, states that heat energy cannot flow from a colder body to a hotter without the input of energy, and that a quantity called entropy cannot  decrease in a closed physical system. Later theories require that the system also must be of constant volume as well for that to apply.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
askathiestssimplequestions

askathiestssimplequestions wrote:

Next lets talk about the second law of thermo dynamics.  Im not certain you understand the point im making there.  If an athiest like some have suggested believes that the universe has existed for an eternity than that very notion logically contradicts the second law.  I f the universe had an actual infinite past it is highly likely that the universe would have already been destroyed by now due to everything that exists in a closed system will lene to disorder and chaos with time, so if we have an infinite past, i would say the chances of the univers already being destroyed are overwhelming.  I dont believe anything you have said refutes that likelhood.

 

What if the universe started with an infinite amount of energy?

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods wrote:This post,

Rich Woods wrote:

This post, made years after the fact ...looks personal to me...

Sometimes people really do sign up just to make a shit-stirring post... and RRS has a *lot* of enemies, as Natural so astutely said.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)