Commentary on Cpt_pineapple and Fortunate Son
Offline I made this forum topic so I, and other people, can comment on the debate called Cpt_pineapple and Fortunate Son. The debate is on TAG. The argument being debated is listed below.
Okay, since I am not being allowed a topic in the debate forum, I will post my argument here and I am simply going to ignore everyone who responds except for Cpt_pineapple.
Please keep posts under 500 words.
TERMS DEFINED:
God = Intelligent being who must exist by metaphysical necessity. From his metaphysical necessity, he must also be (a) eternal, (b) the sufficient reason for his own existence, (c) theoretically unable to improve upon.
Laws of logic - principles which govern the content of our discourse and dictate proper thinking; the most obvious is the law of non-contradiction (A v ~A).
Possible worlds = states that the world could have been in given certain circumstances.
For the sake of brevity, I'm going to forego expanding the argument using the rules of propositional logic such as conjunction, modus ponens, etc.
(1) The laws of logic exist in all possible worlds.
(2) The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon a mind
THEREFORE, an intelligent being exists in all possible worlds.
(1) is justified because given the infinite possibilities of states that the world could have been in, the laws of logic do not change. This becomes obvious when you realize someone must use the laws of logic in order to deny that they apply.
(2) is justified because the application of the laws of logic is a mental application. They cannot be located in the physical world. They only exist if someone thinks them.
The conclusion necessarily follows. If the laws of logic exist in all possible worlds and they require a mind in order to exist, then a mind must exist in all possible worlds.
In order to refute this argument, you must show the following:
(A) That there are circumstances where the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, do not have application. For example, you will have to explain how it is possible for a cat to be both a cat and not a cat at the same time.
OR
(B) That the laws of logic do not exist in all possible worlds AND that logic does not require a mind. For example, you will have to explain WHAT the laws of logic are, such that they are able to exist without a mind.
- Login to post comments
Offline God cannot change his own character.
I find this to be a horrible statement.
If God created this and all other imaginable (and unimaginable) universes by the almighty powers of his very Godly Godliness, surely he can do anything? Just like that? No?
There is a stupefying arrogance embedded in the act of making statements on God's behalf. If you choose to "believe" in God, should you not also have a little faith? Meaning that you trust God to be able to take care of business without any intervention by you? (You can almost see the the dumb fuck getting up and saying "Ok, I can see that God is choosing to not do anything about you and what you're saying, so I'm gonna take it upon myself to overrule God's decision and take decisive action in the matter by virtue of debating your ideas, because I think that something should be done abot this and since God isn't man enogh to handle his business, I - the mighty me - shall have to step in and set things right.")
Next, you'll have people trying to prove the existence of God by linear, circular, formal, creative, and whatever modes of logic have you. I thought the scholastic debate pretty much ended with Thomas Aquinas. But no, here you have someone resurrecting the ghost of Anselm of Canterbury and his "ontological proof of God's existence". Why would an almighty creator of everything need you to speak on his behalf? It boggles the mind. (And all Anselm really succeeded in proving was his own limited powers of imagination.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does not faith mean... faith? As in... FAITH? As in, you place your life and all that it entails into the hands of God, unconditionally, and you try to do the best with what you have, including your limited capeability to understand the ways of God? (Now I feel like a closet Jew, haha.)
The irony of all this is that most atheists have a lot more faith in a God that they don't even believe in by virtue of how they confront their own human nature and its limitations. If God as a creator exists, his existence is not depending upon your beliefs. Nor should it matter what you believe (or not believe) because it essentially boils down to being the same: You still have to live in this world as a human being and confront the ambiguity of it all. You still have to make your choices and own up to the consequences of that. You shall still be judged - both by Man and God - by the standards of your behaviour rather than the piousness of your vain self image.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
- Login to post comments
Offline Sorry; double posting.
- Login to post comments
Offline I made this forum topic so I, and other people, can comment on the debate called Cpt_pineapple and Fortunate Son. The debate is on TAG. The argument being debated is listed below.
Fortunate_Son wrote:Okay, since I am not being allowed a topic in the debate forum, I will post my argument here and I am simply going to ignore everyone who responds except for Cpt_pineapple.
Please keep posts under 500 words.
TERMS DEFINED:
God = Intelligent being who must exist by metaphysical necessity. From his metaphysical necessity, he must also be (a) eternal, (b) the sufficient reason for his own existence, (c) theoretically unable to improve upon.
Laws of logic - principles which govern the content of our discourse and dictate proper thinking; the most obvious is the law of non-contradiction (A v ~A).
Possible worlds = states that the world could have been in given certain circumstances.
For the sake of brevity, I'm going to forego expanding the argument using the rules of propositional logic such as conjunction, modus ponens, etc.
(1) The laws of logic exist in all possible worlds.
(2) The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon a mind
THEREFORE, an intelligent being exists in all possible worlds.
(1) is justified because given the infinite possibilities of states that the world could have been in, the laws of logic do not change. This becomes obvious when you realize someone must use the laws of logic in order to deny that they apply.
(2) is justified because the application of the laws of logic is a mental application. They cannot be located in the physical world. They only exist if someone thinks them.
The conclusion necessarily follows. If the laws of logic exist in all possible worlds and they require a mind in order to exist, then a mind must exist in all possible worlds.
In order to refute this argument, you must show the following:
(A) That there are circumstances where the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, do not have application. For example, you will have to explain how it is possible for a cat to be both a cat and not a cat at the same time.
OR
(B) That the laws of logic do not exist in all possible worlds AND that logic does not require a mind. For example, you will have to explain WHAT the laws of logic are, such that they are able to exist without a mind.
"Possible worlds = states that the world could have been in given certain circumstances."
Not to pick nits potentially but I assume what he really means are possible universes.
There are many possible other states that the world (planet) could have been in just from other planetary formation scenarios which would have nothing to do with the laws of logic.
"(1) The laws of logic exist in all possible worlds. "
Ok, really? Do they? Isn't this a pretty big leap of speculation. 1. It assumes that there could be other possible universes. Maybe this is the only one or type that exists. 2. It assumes that the laws of logic exist in all possible universes. If you can imagine all possible universes isn't it possible to imagine one where logic doesn't work? (note I'm just playing devil's advocate here..)
"(2) The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon a mind"
Doesn't this basically go back to the question of 'if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it...'... I mean does this follow then that the laws of logic didn't exist before a sentient life form had evolved?
Could we conclude that before that causality wasn't tacked down or some other illogical sequences of events could occur because there was no mind?
I don't know I have some problems with the premises. They seem to assume a lot of things which are certainly not concluded or accepted enough to be taken as 'given'
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson
- Login to post comments
Offline This IS easy. Arguments for anything super natural, ESPECIALLY an "all powerful" disembodied brain with super powers, is bullshit.
If others have the patience to wade through their convoluted clap trap, have at it.
What they start out with is a naked assertion. Then they build their arguments on ancient books, debunked philosophy and pile on top of that unscientific bullshit.
Crap in, crap out.
Their gods are merely a product of their bad case of the warm fuzzies. It is nothing but simple human psychology in wanting a super hero to swoop them off the train tracks. It is merely the same anthropomorphism that once had humans worshiping the volcano. It is merely the species projecting our wishful thinking on the world around us.
Why comment? In the end they are claiming that a brain with no brain, no neurons or cerebellum with magical super powers floats out there everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Indulging in their distractions may be fun, but it doesn't cut to the core of where their starting point is. They figure once they get you into their quicksand you will be so distracted away from their starting point of a naked assertion, you'll forget what that starting point was.
They have no choice but to drag you down the convoluted scenic route because they themselves have bought it.
To the fans of gods. THIS IS YOUR STARTING POINT.
1. A brain with no material properties magically made us and the universe.
THAT is your starting point and no amount of convoluted crap is going to distract me from that starting point.
SO, until you can replicate and falsify such a claim in an independent lab setting with double blind tests and independent peer review, YOU HAVE NOTHING but a claim. And claims are like sphincters, everyone has one.
The species didn't die out when it learned the earth was flat. Thor doesn't smite people with lighting. You wont get a magical harem in a fictional afterlife. It takes TWO sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote, and virgins don't get knocked up via ghostsperm. Human flesh does not survive rigor mortis.
AND EVEN before all this you swallow the claim that a brain with no brain magically made all this.
It never occurs to the believer that the rational and simple and least complicated answer as to why people believe bullshit, is because the bullshit sounds good and that they merely like it. If others outside your label believe false things, and have in the past, and to this day still do, what makes any believer of any god think they magically escaped a natural human flaw of filling in a gap with crap?
Gods are gap answers, nothing more than a human invention of imagination.
I am sorry if I am spoiling all the fun, but the more I see these convoluted arguments the more I want to pull my hair out and scream.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline The sad thing is, Brian37 probably represents most of the atheist population; a bunch of stubborn idiots who constantly use foul language and resort to childish insults in the face of opposing viewpoints.
- Login to post comments
Offline The sad thing is, Brian37 probably represents most of the atheist population; a bunch of stubborn idiots who constantly use foul language and resort to childish insults in the face of opposing viewpoints.
And yet, you simply assert his starting point exists (which is what you're being asked to prove). There doesn't seem to be anything in your arguments that would lead to the God of the Bible except a strong desire that it be so.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline The sad thing is, Brian37 probably represents most of the atheist population; a bunch of stubborn idiots who constantly use foul language and resort to childish insults in the face of opposing viewpoints.
CASE IN POINT:
And yet, you simply assert his starting point exists (which is what you're being asked to prove). There doesn't seem to be anything in your arguments that would lead to the God of the Bible except a strong desire that it be so.
- Login to post comments
Offline The sad thing is, Brian37 probably represents most of the atheist population; a bunch of stubborn idiots who constantly use foul language and resort to childish insults in the face of opposing viewpoints.
Yet another theist without a new argument. Then they just moan about the big meanie atheists picking on them.
- Login to post comments
Offline Fortunate_Son wrote:The sad thing is, Brian37 probably represents most of the atheist population; a bunch of stubborn idiots who constantly use foul language and resort to childish insults in the face of opposing viewpoints.
CASE IN POINT:
jcgadfly wrote:And yet, you simply assert his starting point exists (which is what you're being asked to prove). There doesn't seem to be anything in your arguments that would lead to the God of the Bible except a strong desire that it be so.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
Offline What's at issue is whether or not the laws of logic can be accounted for from an atheist perspective. So far you have not demonstrated that they could be.
The Laws of Logic do not change in any Universe in which distinct entities can be identified, since that is all they depend on.The concept of Logic is a mental process - the real-world order it describes is not.
EDIT: Your own wording actually acknowledged this distinction:
Quote:(2) is justified because the application of the laws of logic is a mental application.Precisely - applying the laws of logic is a mental process, this does not entail that logic itself is purely in the mind. (Thanks to Magus in the commentary thread for pointing this out).
As I said in the other thread, this argument just boils down to asserting that order cannot exist in the Universe without a God.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
Offline Fortunate_Son wrote:The sad thing is, Brian37 probably represents most of the atheist population; a bunch of stubborn idiots who constantly use foul language and resort to childish insults in the face of opposing viewpoints.
And yet, you simply assert his starting point exists (which is what you're being asked to prove). There doesn't seem to be anything in your arguments that would lead to the God of the Bible except a strong desire that it be so.
Childish is expecting your belief to be treated with respect. I respect claims that can be demonstrated. Just because someone strings words together doesn't give them credibility. Otherwise the earth would be flat merely because it was once a popular belief.
When you, or anyone of any god claim says "DON'T PICK ON MY GOD", I get the image of a midget standing in front of the Terminator shouting, "DON'T HIT THE TERMINATOR, YOU MIGHT HURT HIM?" Does your pet invisible friend have a glass jaw? He needs you to protect him?
Getting upset over my word usage does nothing on your side to prove that your disembodied brain exists. Your frustration should be with your own lack of evidence, not me pointing out that you have none.
You think I am being mean to you. The reality is that I am trying to splash cold water on your face to wake you up. I am trying to help you. You merely don't like my tactic of trying to help you. Maybe you should get over yourself and stop trying to protect your god as if I were kicking a puppy. If your god is real, for argument's sake only, I find it absurd that it's top priority would be to be offended by me, a mere mortal, blaspheming it. I think if I were to believe in god, I would want it to be more concerned with Haiti, for example, not that someone may or may not kiss his ass.
You are mistaking "WAKE UP" for "I HATE YOU". I am merely being blunt about your naked assertion. If you want me to sugar coat reality, I am sorry, I wont do that. You came to this board, no one put a gun to your head. We don't hate you, we have never met you. STRICTLY on your god claim, as an issue, we are merely saying "bullshit".
Just like if you had a friend come up to you and say, "The Lions won the Super Bowl last year"
And you rightfully responded "BULLSHIT, the Steelers did".
There is no such thing as a non-material magical man with super powers by any name. Volcanos were once believed to be gods, and the Egyptians once believed that the sun, itself was a thinking being. I am merely telling you in a blunt manor that you to are making the same mistake they made. It is childish of you to make assumptions about my intent and throw a tantrum like a kid who is being told Santa isn't real. The truth is that if you care more about being offended than self introspection you will be stuck in the delusion we are trying to pull you out of.
Get over being offended and be unafraid of self introspection. Justifying something is not the same as testing something. You are merely trying to justify your belief. The only way to be sure what comes out of your mouth ON ANY ISSUE, not just religion, but any issue, is reality, is having the ability to replicate and falsify and have it independently verified.
You merely have a claim. Instead of accusing me of insulting you, why not try reading what I wrote. If what you say is true, then it should be easy to replicate and falsify. Otherwise the intellectually honest thing to do is think about the prospect of being wrong. If the Egyptians were wrong about the sun being a thinking being, what makes you think you got it right in a non-material thinking being. At least they had a sun to point at. You don't even have that.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline The sad thing is, Brian37 probably represents most of the atheist population; a bunch of stubborn idiots who constantly use foul language and resort to childish insults in the face of opposing viewpoints.
LOL @ sweeping generalities....
Wouldn't mind a healthy answer/rebuttal of what I originally posted as well.
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson
- Login to post comments
Offline I find it laughable that someone would protect a claim as if we were kicking a puppy. According to them, their god claim would be more like a pit bull, not a cute puppy. But when you merely tell them that the idea of a brain with no brain is absurd, they act like you kicked a puppy. The same reaction kids have when someone tells them Santa is make believe.
They don't get it. Our bluntness is to help them out of their mind trap. Our intent is to help people give up on bad claims. If anything, this type of reaction shows their true colors of insecurity and fear of being wrong, otherwise why would you need to protect an all powerful pit bull?
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline Fortunate_Son wrote:That's an example of a stubborn idiot using foul language and resorting to insults in the face of opposing viewpoints? That's a wild imagination you have!Fortunate_Son wrote:The sad thing is, Brian37 probably represents most of the atheist population; a bunch of stubborn idiots who constantly use foul language and resort to childish insults in the face of opposing viewpoints.
CASE IN POINT:
jcgadfly wrote:And yet, you simply assert his starting point exists (which is what you're being asked to prove). There doesn't seem to be anything in your arguments that would lead to the God of the Bible except a strong desire that it be so.
I love it when I don't have to debate to be covered in win.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline Childish is expecting your belief to be treated with respect. I respect claims that can be demonstrated. Just because someone strings words together doesn't give them credibility. Otherwise the earth would be flat merely because it was once a popular belief.
I do not expect you to respect my belief(s). But I do think it is reasonable to expect a certain level of intellect, which you do not nearly qualify.
Getting upset over my word usage does nothing on your side to prove that your disembodied brain exists. Your frustration should be with your own lack of evidence, not me pointing out that you have none.
I'm frustrated because you are an idiot. Having discourse with you would be like trying to have a discussion with a potted plant.
I am merely being blunt about your naked assertion.
No. You are being an idiot.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
- Login to post comments
Offline And if I am an idiot and an asshole, that would make Thomas Jefferson an even bigger idiot and asshole.
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences.... If it end in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787.
AND
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
AND
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline That's an example of a stubborn idiot
Yes.
- Login to post comments
Offline In no way am I claiming Jefferson was an atheist, he was not. He was a generic deist at best, but not an atheist. The point in posting those quotes was to show the tantrum throwing theist that they, not me, are being childish. To fear blasphemy is to subject yourself to being ruled by fear. Jefferson would care more about WHY you say what you say, he most certainly wouldn't fear harsh criticism, he would welcome it. It would mean to him, that he gets to challenge himself.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline And if I am an idiot and an asshole, that would make Thomas Jefferson an even bigger idiot and asshole.
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences.... If it end in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787.AND
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823AND
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
Thomas Jefferson was off-base on certain things, but he was overall an intelligent and courageous guy.
You are some 16 year old uneducated punk who happened upon a few atheist websites and now you believe you are an expert.
But anyway, I'm done conversing with you. All I'm saying is-- especially to the atheists on the forum-- please distance yourself from people like Brian. He really makes you look bad. Just some friendly advice.
- Login to post comments
Offline Any educated person who still takes the traditional arguments for God seriously can justifiably be called an idiot.
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
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:And if I am an idiot and an asshole, that would make Thomas Jefferson an even bigger idiot and asshole.
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences.... If it end in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787.AND
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823AND
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
Thomas Jefferson was off-base on certain things, but he was overall an intelligent and courageous guy.
You are some 16 year old uneducated punk who happened upon a few atheist websites and now you believe you are an expert.
But anyway, I'm done conversing with you. All I'm saying is-- especially to the atheists on the forum-- please distance yourself from people like Brian. He really makes you look bad. Just some friendly advice.
I don't think anyone makes me look good or bad but me.
Let me ask this... no matter how childish or immature you think someone is - how do you think it makes you look when you make statements like:
"You are some 16 year old uneducated punk..."
Just some friendly advice - pot meet kettle.
Anyway, I'd love some discourse on my first reply.
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson
- Login to post comments
Offline Is it safe to say that you've conceded the debate?
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:Childish is expecting your belief to be treated with respect. I respect claims that can be demonstrated. Just because someone strings words together doesn't give them credibility. Otherwise the earth would be flat merely because it was once a popular belief.
I do not expect you to respect my belief(s). But I do think it is reasonable to expect a certain level of intellect, which you do not nearly qualify.
Quote:Getting upset over my word usage does nothing on your side to prove that your disembodied brain exists. Your frustration should be with your own lack of evidence, not me pointing out that you have none.I'm frustrated because you are an idiot. Having discourse with you would be like trying to have a discussion with a potted plant.
Quote:I am merely being blunt about your naked assertion.No. You are being an idiot.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
I am an idiot because I don't let my brains fall out and blindly swallow the claim that a brain with no brain exists? Are you an idiot for not believing in Ra, the sun god? Maybe YOU should try understanding why you reject the once believed claim that the sun was a thinking being and apply that same logic to your own personal claims.
You are not an idiot for not believing in other peoples gods. The only difference between you and I is that I have one less god than you do.
You are just acting like a child because someone isn't saying "isnt that nice". If you don't like what I am saying, then don't respond to my posts. You don't have to tourture yourself if you don't want to, but do not expect blind submission from me, especially on a board you don't own.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:And if I am an idiot and an asshole, that would make Thomas Jefferson an even bigger idiot and asshole.
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences.... If it end in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787.AND
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823AND
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
Thomas Jefferson was off-base on certain things, but he was overall an intelligent and courageous guy.
You are some 16 year old uneducated punk who happened upon a few atheist websites and now you believe you are an expert.
But anyway, I'm done conversing with you. All I'm saying is-- especially to the atheists on the forum-- please distance yourself from people like Brian. He really makes you look bad. Just some friendly advice.
I am 43 FYI. But I guess I better not dare quote what Jefferson said about the birth and death of Jesus, I wouldn't want you to go postal.
I am brain dead. I've only read things like 1984, Animal Farm, Plato's Apology, Plato's Allegory of the cave. The Oedipus trilogies, God Delusion. I also know what infinite regress is. The fallacy of Pascal's wager. Occham's Razor. Bentrand Russell's teapot, ect ect ect. I also know what adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine are.
But only a retard could understand those things. You got me beat, I guess I'll stick to Where is Waldo.
I am outmatched. Anyone who claims that ghosts knock up girls without two sets DNA must have AMA peer reviewed material and standardized tests demonstrating what ghost sperm is.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline The sad thing is, Brian37 probably represents most of the atheist population; a bunch of stubborn idiots who constantly use foul language and resort to childish insults in the face of opposing viewpoints.
Later you said...
"No. You are being an idiot.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?"
to respond to Brian37.
A little bit further down the page...
"You are some 16 year old uneducated punk who happened upon a few atheist websites and now you believe you are an expert."
You know, its almost like you are resorting to childish insults in the face of an opposing viewpoint instead of addressing points (I don't think repeatedly calling someone an idiot counts)... I just can't help but appreciate the irony.
- Login to post comments
Offline You chose to come here. What did you expect? That would be like getting into the boxing ring with Floyd Mayweather and bitching because he punched you.
I bet if I were a lifeguard and you were drowning you'd swim away from the life jacket because it had atheist cooties.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline I am 43 FYI.
LOL
You can't be serious.
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:I am 43 FYI.
LOL
You can't be serious.
magnanimous in defeat as always.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline It is entertaining to watch someone get indignant when you don't go by the script they expect. It's like you are playing chess and they try to move the rook like a queen and you simply tell them they are wrong. Then they knock over all the pieces and run away because you gave them cooties.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline Fortunate_Son wrote:Brian37 wrote:I am 43 FYI.
LOL
You can't be serious.
magnanimous in defeat as always.
????
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:I am 43 FYI.
LOL
You can't be serious.
Are you a young Brian37-er?
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:I am 43 FYI.
LOL
You can't be serious.
I thought you weren't talking to me? And since we are talking about age here, at least I gave up my invisible friends when I grew up. What do you have to say for yourself?
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:Fortunate_Son wrote:Brian37 wrote:I am 43 FYI.
LOL
You can't be serious.
magnanimous in defeat as always.
????
I read where you went back to the debate - you have the distinct honor of having your arguments crushed in two threads.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:I am 43 FYI.
LOL
You can't be serious.
He is, I can certify that claim. Furthermore he doesn't make us look bad. He never has.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:Fortunate_Son wrote:Brian37 wrote:I am 43 FYI.
LOL
You can't be serious.
magnanimous in defeat as always.
????
He is saying that since you cant defend your position you resort to this 'MOMMY MOMMY DON'T LET THEM KICK MY ALL POWERFUL PUPPY"
Sorry, I didn't let you meander behind the curtain before I pulled it back and exposed the wizard as merely being a man.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline Is it safe to say that you've conceded the debate?
LOL
You are like the little brother who stands behind the big brother and repeats whatever the big brother says. Not that I do not understand. For those who joined us late, here is how it went down:
jcgadfly started a conversation with me asking about the veracity of the Bible. This is what he said (probably quoted from some atheist website): "We have other sources for WWI that can be researched - none for the Bible. For example, the birth of Christ supposedly happened during a census ordered by Augustus. No such census happened."
My response: "Actually, we know that there was a census ordered by Augustus. It took place in 6 AD, which Josephus made specific reference to. Atheists point to the fact that it took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria, which didn't happen until a few years after Jesus was born. This was the aforementioned census that Josephus referred to. But "governor" is actually translated from a Greek word which means "to be leading" and Quirinius actually had other positions of power before he became governor of Syria. We know that when Jesus was born, he was a military leader in Judea, which is a province of Syria. So there could have been a census. We just don't have any record of it. But we do know that the bible mentions it being the FIRST census, which suggests that Luke knew there were others that happened afterward, including the one mentioned by Josephus."
So in the face of me addressing his objection, he comes back with this: "It could have been a confusion with Quintillius also (on Luke's part). Nonetheless, no simultaneous "worldwide" census happened."
Hilarious. He cannot even get the names of the historical figures correct... and yet he acts like he thought of this objection on his own. Clearly, it was pasted from some website and the website did not include some of those objections. My last reply was:
"Actually, we are not sure of that at all. You've just made a claim that you haven't backed up. I've shown that everything written in the gospels is entirely consistent with there being a census at the same time Quirinius (hilarious how you call him "Quintillius", which suggests that you never heard of him before I even mentioned him) was a military leader."
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/19234
Interestingly enough, jcgadfly did not reply after that. Is it any wonder that when I made an open challenge to anyone on this forum, that jcgadfly did not step up to the plate? I'm sorry, but if you are going to register with this site, you should at least be up to snuff on the opposing arguments. Otherwise, you look foolish.
- Login to post comments
Offline The fallacy of Pascal's wager. Occham's Razor. Bentrand Russell's teapot, ect ect ect.
Hilarious that you consider Russell's teapot to be a fallacy since it is actually in FAVOR of your position.
LOL
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:Is it safe to say that you've conceded the debate?
LOL
You are like the little brother who stands behind the big brother and repeats whatever the big brother says. Not that I do not understand. For those who joined us late, here is how it went down:
jcgadfly started a conversation with me asking about the veracity of the Bible. This is what he said (probably quoted from some atheist website): "We have other sources for WWI that can be researched - none for the Bible. For example, the birth of Christ supposedly happened during a census ordered by Augustus. No such census happened."My response: "Actually, we know that there was a census ordered by Augustus. It took place in 6 AD, which Josephus made specific reference to. Atheists point to the fact that it took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria, which didn't happen until a few years after Jesus was born. This was the aforementioned census that Josephus referred to. But "governor" is actually translated from a Greek word which means "to be leading" and Quirinius actually had other positions of power before he became governor of Syria. We know that when Jesus was born, he was a military leader in Judea, which is a province of Syria. So there could have been a census. We just don't have any record of it. But we do know that the bible mentions it being the FIRST census, which suggests that Luke knew there were others that happened afterward, including the one mentioned by Josephus."
So in the face of me addressing his objection, he comes back with this: "It could have been a confusion with Quintillius also (on Luke's part). Nonetheless, no simultaneous "worldwide" census happened."
Hilarious. He cannot even get the names of the historical figures correct... and yet he acts like he thought of this objection on his own. Clearly, it was pasted from some website and the website did not include some of those objections. My last reply was:
"Actually, we are not sure of that at all. You've just made a claim that you haven't backed up. I've shown that everything written in the gospels is entirely consistent with there being a census at the same time Quirinius (hilarious how you call him "Quintillius", which suggests that you never heard of him before I even mentioned him) was a military leader."
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/19234
Interestingly enough, jcgadfly did not reply after that. Is it any wonder that when I made an open challenge to anyone on this forum, that jcgadfly did not step up to the plate? I'm sorry, but if you are going to register with this site, you should at least be up to snuff on the opposing arguments. Otherwise, you look foolish.
Yes they were all from the same website WHICH DID it's homework. The entire letters of Jefferson are on UVA's website which, word for word, confirm those quotes.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:Is it safe to say that you've conceded the debate?
LOL
You are like the little brother who stands behind the big brother and repeats whatever the big brother says. Not that I do not understand. For those who joined us late, here is how it went down:
jcgadfly started a conversation with me asking about the veracity of the Bible. This is what he said (probably quoted from some atheist website): "We have other sources for WWI that can be researched - none for the Bible. For example, the birth of Christ supposedly happened during a census ordered by Augustus. No such census happened."My response: "Actually, we know that there was a census ordered by Augustus. It took place in 6 AD, which Josephus made specific reference to. Atheists point to the fact that it took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria, which didn't happen until a few years after Jesus was born. This was the aforementioned census that Josephus referred to. But "governor" is actually translated from a Greek word which means "to be leading" and Quirinius actually had other positions of power before he became governor of Syria. We know that when Jesus was born, he was a military leader in Judea, which is a province of Syria. So there could have been a census. We just don't have any record of it. But we do know that the bible mentions it being the FIRST census, which suggests that Luke knew there were others that happened afterward, including the one mentioned by Josephus."
So in the face of me addressing his objection, he comes back with this: "It could have been a confusion with Quintillius also (on Luke's part). Nonetheless, no simultaneous "worldwide" census happened."
Hilarious. He cannot even get the names of the historical figures correct... and yet he acts like he thought of this objection on his own. Clearly, it was pasted from some website and the website did not include some of those objections. My last reply was:
"Actually, we are not sure of that at all. You've just made a claim that you haven't backed up. I've shown that everything written in the gospels is entirely consistent with there being a census at the same time Quirinius (hilarious how you call him "Quintillius", which suggests that you never heard of him before I even mentioned him) was a military leader."
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/19234
Interestingly enough, jcgadfly did not reply after that. Is it any wonder that when I made an open challenge to anyone on this forum, that jcgadfly did not step up to the plate? I'm sorry, but if you are going to register with this site, you should at least be up to snuff on the opposing arguments. Otherwise, you look foolish.
I lost interest when you brought up Josephus and the interpolations you insist are true. This has nothing to do with getting your head handed to you on your arguments for God. But , if you insist...
As for Quirinius - "The Gospel of Luke links the birth of Jesus to a "world-wide" census ordered by Augustus carried out while Quirinius was governor of Syria; however, Luke also, like the Gospel of Matthew dates the birth to the reign of Herod the Great, who died nearly ten years before the census of 6 or 7 AD. Some modern historians suggest, therefore, that Luke's account is mistaken."[11]
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius
The conjecture of Quirinius/Quiinctilius was me trying to help Luke out since he can't get his own shit straight. Sorry I tried to help your side out.
I give Luke the benefit of the doubt and this is how I get thanked? Awfully Christian of you.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:The fallacy of Pascal's wager. Occham's Razor. Bentrand Russell's teapot, ect ect ect.
Hilarious that you consider Russell's teapot to be a fallacy since it is actually in FAVOR of your position.
LOL
Your preschool level reading comprehension skills are even funnier. He never said it was a fallacy.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline I lost interest when you brought up Josephus and the interpolations you insist are true. This has nothing to do with getting your head handed to you on your arguments for God. But , if you insist...
Sorry, you had the opportunity to continue the discussion back then. But you ran away with your tail between your legs when you realized that you couldn't even get the names of the people correct.
I didn't even mention the Jesus passages that Josephus wrote, so I really don't understand what you are talking about. Are you saying that everything Josephus ever wrote was an interpolation? Did Josephus even exist? You make no sense.
As for Quirinius - "The Gospel of Luke links the birth of Jesus to a "world-wide" census ordered by Augustus carried out while Quirinius was governor of Syria; however, Luke also, like the Gospel of Matthew dates the birth to the reign of Herod the Great, who died nearly ten years before the census of 6 or 7 AD. Some modern historians suggest, therefore, that Luke's account is mistaken."[11]
Why didn't you mention this before? Couldn't come up with anything when you entered "Quintillius" into Wikipedia? LOL.
The conjecture of Quirinius/Quiinctilius was me trying to help Luke out since he can't get his own shit straight. Sorry I tried to help your side out.I give Luke the benefit of the doubt and this is how I get thanked? Awfully Christian of you.
No, it was you not even knowing who Quirinius was and you bailed out knowing that you made a complete fool of yourself. I addressed your points a few weeks ago and you didn't could not respond. It is too late. I've already won.
- Login to post comments
Offline
No, it was you not even knowing who Quirinius was and you bailed out knowing that you made a complete fool of yourself. I addressed your points a few weeks ago and you didn't could not respond. It is too late. I've already won.
Actually, in a debate I've found if you have the need to declare yourself the winner it's a good sign you're probably not.
Just some friendly advice.
Otherwise it just seems like you're trying to shout down the opposition instead of answering them on the basis of the facts.
In fact, that's a great idea. Why don't you answer the facts of his arguments instead of arbitrarily claiming victory.
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:I lost interest when you brought up Josephus and the interpolations you insist are true. This has nothing to do with getting your head handed to you on your arguments for God. But , if you insist...
Sorry, you had the opportunity to continue the discussion back then. But you ran away with your tail between your legs when you realized that you couldn't even get the names of the people correct.
I didn't even mention the Jesus passages that Josephus wrote, so I really don't understand what you are talking about. Are you saying that everything Josephus ever wrote was an interpolation? Did Josephus even exist? You make no sense.
Quote:As for Quirinius - "The Gospel of Luke links the birth of Jesus to a "world-wide" census ordered by Augustus carried out while Quirinius was governor of Syria; however, Luke also, like the Gospel of Matthew dates the birth to the reign of Herod the Great, who died nearly ten years before the census of 6 or 7 AD. Some modern historians suggest, therefore, that Luke's account is mistaken."[11]Why didn't you mention this before? Couldn't come up with anything when you entered "Quintillius" into Wikipedia? LOL.
Quote:The conjecture of Quirinius/Quiinctilius was me trying to help Luke out since he can't get his own shit straight. Sorry I tried to help your side out.I give Luke the benefit of the doubt and this is how I get thanked? Awfully Christian of you.
No, it was you not even knowing who Quirinius was and you bailed out knowing that you made a complete fool of yourself. I addressed your points a few weeks ago and you didn't could not respond. It is too late. I've already won.
I see you've no response for this. Meh - it's not the first time I lost a debate because real life couldn't let me get to every internet prick I've ever gotten into a discussion with.
"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
- Login to post comments
I have a problem with number one and the justification for number one. Number one is:
This statment is justified with:
The first sentence says that the laws of logic are the same in every possible universe. This assumes that the laws of logic exist in every possible universe. The first sentence can't be used to prove number one because it assumes what it is trying to prove. In other words it uses circular reasoning. The second sentence says that someone must use the laws of logic to deny that they apply. In other words if someone is using the laws of logic then the laws of logic must exist. This assumes that some kind of intelligent mind exists in every possible universe. The conclusion of this argument is that some kind of intelligent mind exists in every universe. You can't use the conclusion of an argument to support one of its premises because that is circular reasoning. Without circular reasoning there is no justification for statement number one. Because statement one is without justification this whole argument is without justification.
So, how would this go?
1. Assuming the laws of logic hold in all possible universes.
2. A universe without god is a possible universe.
3. So, God isn't required for logic.
Is this game as easy as it looks?
That's a good one.
I have to disagree with the idea that it is possible to find a universe that defies standard logic. If we found such a universe we would translate our findings through what we consider logical. It's no different than if we came across an intelligent culture that used twelve digits for mathematical expressions as opposed to our ten. We could still interpret it based on our standard.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
I'm not trying to make an argument about the existence of logic in other universes. I am trying to show that Fortunate_son's argument uses circular reasoning. Fortunate_Son made an argument that concludes an intelligent being exists in all possible worlds. One of the premises he uses to make his argument is that the laws of logic exist in all possible worlds. He justifies this statement with:
is justified because given the infinite possibilities of states that the world could have been in, the laws of logic do not change. This becomes obvious when you realize someone must use the laws of logic in order to deny that they apply.
If the laws of logic exist in one possible universe and don't exist in another possible universe then the laws of logic have changed between those two universes. Fortunate son’s justification assumes that logic exists in every possible universe. Fortunate son is using his justification to prove that logic exists in every possible universe. Furtunate_son is suing circular reasoning to support his first premise. Therefore fortunate_son's argument is unsound.
(1) The laws of logic exist in all possible worlds.
Indeed
But do you sometimes accept that so-called logicians
forget their CREATIVE logic?“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)
[quote = Fortunate_Son]
(2) The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon a mind.
(2) is justified because the application of the laws of logic is a mental application. They cannot be located in the physical world. They only exist if someone thinks them.
I don't understand this one.
First he says the laws themselves are dependent on a mind, but then says the application is dependent on a mind.
That is like saying numbers are ontologically dependent upon minds and somehow that means that if no minds exist there cannot be 2 apples.
The understand that there are two apples might require a mind. Of course our computers use logic gates to determine all sorts of things is this suggesting that computers are minds?
I would suggest that in order for something to exists it must exist a something. To exists as something to so not exist as something else. This would include any deity.
Also if a god created the laws of logic then its nature must necessary be illogical as there would be no other alternative. If gods nature is illogical then there is no reason to suggest that it won't change or that it hasn't. How would you suggest anything about this supposed being and concluded that it must be so.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.