Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple

Brian Sapient on Twitter

Brian Sapient

Celebrity Atheists

List of atheist sites

Ask the atheist

Antiques and Art

Peanut Gallery for Rednef v Caposkia one on one thread.

Posted on: March 14, 2011 - 2:10pm

Brian37

Posts: 16463

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

Peanut Gallery for Rednef v Caposkia one on one thread.

Please do not comment in that thread, post here if you want to comment about their one on one debate.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29079

Caposkia wrote:

There is no yes or no answer to that. The reason is because some of it is understood to be taken literal, and some of it is understood to be taken metaphorically. unlike the atheistic assumption that we can just pick and choose what to take literal and what not to, there is extensive research that goes into understanding what must be taken literal and not. Most of what should not be taken literally is pretty obvious. Beyond literal and metaphorical, there are some parts that are known to be parables and some understood to be historical.
ultimately the answer depends on what part of the Bible you're talking about. Don't take it the wrong way, the questionable parts are not pertinent to the belief system of Christianity and are only support for the personality of God and/or a progression in a timelilne. Some are good life lesson stories... e.g. Job is a book in question as to whether it really happened or not... it can be in question because it is understood to be the oldest story in the Bible. The likelihood of it being a parable and not historically accurate is better in my mind due to some extra spiritual characters that are not exampled through the rest of the Bible.

We can prove that George Washington existed, but no sane person would claim he could preform miracles. So even if one were to accept the alleged existence of the Jesus character, there would be absolutely NO evidence that the claims in the bible of the super natural things he is alleged to have done, can be verified or falsified or independently replicated.

Peppering a book with real places or real people does not make fantastic claims true, nor does it confirm the divinity of any god claim, much less his.

"good life lessons" again, another so what. I can find morals in Star Wars and Harry Potter without believing in the fantastic claims in those movies/books.

Deity claims have the same motif at their core. The utopia placebo gap answer that somehow "someone" a human like entity with super powers will swoop the "chosen people" off the train tracks and defeat the villain.

Cap wants to claim "uniqueness" to separate himself from other Christians, but in the end it is still a defense of an invisible human like entity with super powers and no physical material.

"I am not like the others" is an old dead argument.

"it depends" in regards to moral stories vs literal fact, still misses the point that the deity itself, much less the omni-atributes of such an alleged being are not testable or falsifiable.

It all boils down to credulous faith and gullibility in merely wanting a super hero to exist.

Cap merely has bought into an ancient superstition and myth. The book was written over a 1,000 year period with books left out. This hardly seems to be a perfect or efficient plan for an alleged being who wants us to believe in him.

How long would a bicycle company put up with paying a assembly instruction manual as convoluted as the bible? If I wrote an assembly manual that claimed praying to Mickey Mouse would magically make sprocket a fit on top of sprocket b, who would find such a instruction book credible merely because sprockets and bikes are real?

The bible no matter HOW you interpret it is a human written book and was not handed down by a god. It is merely a book of myth that is still currently popular. It is full of scientific absurdity and can hardly be called a book of morality.

Wake up Cap, in the end you are merely trying to defend a super hero concept. You like the idea of being special and "chosen". Your problem is the reality of evolution and the nature of the entire universe would say you are not special.

All the humans in the past, prior to Christianity, and all the humans that will be born will all end up the same way, and the planet itself too, will die. There is no need for a divine fictional super hero to state reality. Not yours, not any.

"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

Posted on: March 14, 2011 - 2:21pm #1

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

Brian37 wrote:Please do not

Brian37 wrote:

Please do not comment in that thread, post here if you want to comment about their one on one debate.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29079
Caposkia wrote:
There is no yes or no answer to that. The reason is because some of it is understood to be taken literal, and some of it is understood to be taken metaphorically. unlike the atheistic assumption that we can just pick and choose what to take literal and what not to, there is extensive research that goes into understanding what must be taken literal and not. Most of what should not be taken literally is pretty obvious. Beyond literal and metaphorical, there are some parts that are known to be parables and some understood to be historical.
ultimately the answer depends on what part of the Bible you're talking about. Don't take it the wrong way, the questionable parts are not pertinent to the belief system of Christianity and are only support for the personality of God and/or a progression in a timelilne. Some are good life lesson stories... e.g. Job is a book in question as to whether it really happened or not... it can be in question because it is understood to be the oldest story in the Bible. The likelihood of it being a parable and not historically accurate is better in my mind due to some extra spiritual characters that are not exampled through the rest of the Bible.
We can prove that George Washington existed, but no sane person would claim he could preform miracles. So even if one were to accept the alleged existence of the Jesus character, there would be absolutely NO evidence that the claims in the bible of the super natural things he is alleged to have done, can be verified or falsified or independently replicated.
Peppering a book with real places or real people does not make fantastic claims true, nor does it confirm the divinity of any god claim, much less his.
"good life lessons" again, another so what. I can find morals in Star Wars and Harry Potter without believing in the fantastic claims in those movies/books.
Deity claims have the same motif at their core. The utopia placebo gap answer that somehow "someone" a human like entity with super powers will swoop the "chosen people" off the train tracks and defeat the villain.
Cap wants to claim "uniqueness" to separate himself from other Christians, but in the end it is still a defense of an invisible human like entity with super powers and no physical material.
"I am not like the others" is an old dead argument.
"it depends" in regards to moral stories vs literal fact, still misses the point that the deity itself, much less the omni-atributes of such an alleged being are not testable or falsifiable.
It all boils down to credulous faith and gullibility in merely wanting a super hero to exist.
Cap merely has bought into an ancient superstition and myth. The book was written over a 1,000 year period with books left out. This hardly seems to be a perfect or efficient plan for an alleged being who wants us to believe in him.
How long would a bicycle company put up with paying a assembly instruction manual as convoluted as the bible? If I wrote an assembly manual that claimed praying to Mickey Mouse would magically make sprocket a fit on top of sprocket b, who would find such a instruction book credible merely because sprockets and bikes are real?
The bible no matter HOW you interpret it is a human written book and was not handed down by a god. It is merely a book of myth that is still currently popular. It is full of scientific absurdity and can hardly be called a book of morality.
Wake up Cap, in the end you are merely trying to defend a super hero concept. You like the idea of being special and "chosen". Your problem is the reality of evolution and the nature of the entire universe would say you are not special.
All the humans in the past, prior to Christianity, and all the humans that will be born will all end up the same way, and the planet itself too, will die. There is no need for a divine fictional super hero to state reality. Not yours, not any.

I think you make some good points. I would add that the miracles attributed to Jesus were quite commonly attributed to many others in that period and so were nothing special. Sam harris point out a popular guru who thousands claim to have seen perform miracles but none of them bare out any more than Jesus's would. There were ghost stories then ( resurrections) and their are ghost stories now. It really is the same category just different cultures.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: March 14, 2011 - 2:31pm #2

Brian37

Posts: 16463

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

TGBaker wrote:Brian37

TGBaker wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Please do not comment in that thread, post here if you want to comment about their one on one debate.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29079
Caposkia wrote:
There is no yes or no answer to that. The reason is because some of it is understood to be taken literal, and some of it is understood to be taken metaphorically. unlike the atheistic assumption that we can just pick and choose what to take literal and what not to, there is extensive research that goes into understanding what must be taken literal and not. Most of what should not be taken literally is pretty obvious. Beyond literal and metaphorical, there are some parts that are known to be parables and some understood to be historical.
ultimately the answer depends on what part of the Bible you're talking about. Don't take it the wrong way, the questionable parts are not pertinent to the belief system of Christianity and are only support for the personality of God and/or a progression in a timelilne. Some are good life lesson stories... e.g. Job is a book in question as to whether it really happened or not... it can be in question because it is understood to be the oldest story in the Bible. The likelihood of it being a parable and not historically accurate is better in my mind due to some extra spiritual characters that are not exampled through the rest of the Bible.
We can prove that George Washington existed, but no sane person would claim he could preform miracles. So even if one were to accept the alleged existence of the Jesus character, there would be absolutely NO evidence that the claims in the bible of the super natural things he is alleged to have done, can be verified or falsified or independently replicated.
Peppering a book with real places or real people does not make fantastic claims true, nor does it confirm the divinity of any god claim, much less his.
"good life lessons" again, another so what. I can find morals in Star Wars and Harry Potter without believing in the fantastic claims in those movies/books.
Deity claims have the same motif at their core. The utopia placebo gap answer that somehow "someone" a human like entity with super powers will swoop the "chosen people" off the train tracks and defeat the villain.
Cap wants to claim "uniqueness" to separate himself from other Christians, but in the end it is still a defense of an invisible human like entity with super powers and no physical material.
"I am not like the others" is an old dead argument.
"it depends" in regards to moral stories vs literal fact, still misses the point that the deity itself, much less the omni-atributes of such an alleged being are not testable or falsifiable.
It all boils down to credulous faith and gullibility in merely wanting a super hero to exist.
Cap merely has bought into an ancient superstition and myth. The book was written over a 1,000 year period with books left out. This hardly seems to be a perfect or efficient plan for an alleged being who wants us to believe in him.
How long would a bicycle company put up with paying a assembly instruction manual as convoluted as the bible? If I wrote an assembly manual that claimed praying to Mickey Mouse would magically make sprocket a fit on top of sprocket b, who would find such a instruction book credible merely because sprockets and bikes are real?
The bible no matter HOW you interpret it is a human written book and was not handed down by a god. It is merely a book of myth that is still currently popular. It is full of scientific absurdity and can hardly be called a book of morality.
Wake up Cap, in the end you are merely trying to defend a super hero concept. You like the idea of being special and "chosen". Your problem is the reality of evolution and the nature of the entire universe would say you are not special.
All the humans in the past, prior to Christianity, and all the humans that will be born will all end up the same way, and the planet itself too, will die. There is no need for a divine fictional super hero to state reality. Not yours, not any.

I think you make some good points. I would add that the miracles attributed to Jesus were quite commonly attributed to many others in that period and so were nothing special. Sam harris point out a popular guru who thousands claim to have seen perform miracles but none of them bare out any more than Jesus's would. There were ghost stories then ( resurrections) and their are ghost stories now. It really is the same category just different cultures.

Don't underestimate Cap, he can move the goal posts faster than you can say lickety split.

Never underestimate the believer's(of any god claim) ability to redress a skunk of a claim in a new tux, or what they think is a new tux.

Claims of god/s are nothing but humans reflecting their own mundane narcissism in their refusal to face their finite existence. It is just wishful thinking.

As soon as cap faces this he will wake up and understand what we are saying to him. I only hope he does before he wastes his entire life on a myth.

Cap merely has a strong emotional attachment to his own ego based on the ignorance that the brain can very easily fall for false claims because of "experience" which is notoriously unreliable.

Posted on: March 14, 2011 - 3:50pm #3

redneF

Posts: 1970

Joined: 2011-01-04

Offline

Brian37 wrote:Don't

Brian37 wrote:

Don't underestimate Cap, he can move the goal posts faster than you can say lickety split.

It appears to be the case, that it's inherent in his character.

I don't let things like that slide.

I'm a 'Say what you mean, mean what you say' kinda guy.

If he cannot articulate very clearly what he means, then he simply is talking gibberish.

Already in his first few posts, he has contradicted himself, on the topic of 'himself', and he's being vague about topics, by dropping 'it' was false, and 'what' is false.

He's not qualifying his 'it' and 'what'.

That kind of stuff is not going to fly with me.

He better bring his 'A' game, unless he wants me to make him look like an utter fool, and a complete BS'er.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Posted on: March 14, 2011 - 4:01pm #4

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

redneF wrote:Brian37

redneF wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Don't underestimate Cap, he can move the goal posts faster than you can say lickety split.
It appears to be the case, that it's inherent in his character.
I don't let things like that slide.

I'm a 'Say what you mean, mean what you say' kinda guy.
If he cannot articulate very clearly what he means, then he simply is talking gibberish.

Already in his first few posts, he has contradicted himself, on the topic of 'himself', and he's being vague about topics, by dropping 'it' was false, and 'what' is false.
He's not qualifying his 'it' and 'what'.
That kind of stuff is not going to fly with me.

He better bring his 'A' game, unless he wants me to make him look like an utter fool, and a complete BS'er.
.

He seems to look for the peripherals and address the fringe area rather than the point. I've tried to get him to explain "the gist of the story" about the gospels for weeks but he has not. He needs that as a fall back zone to respond to anything I address...that does change the gist. I've pointedly asked what this gist thingy is repeatedly.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: March 16, 2011 - 1:19am #5

redneF

Posts: 1970

Joined: 2011-01-04

Offline

These guys are all show, and

These guys are all show, and no go...

Posted on: March 16, 2011 - 1:29pm #6

BobSpence

Posts: 5939

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

redneF wrote:These guys are

redneF wrote:

These guys are all show, and no go...

You do have two rather different Theists, between Cap and Jean.

Cap is very vague, as you have observed, and all but impossible to pin down.

As you say, this text has been argued over and 'studied' so long, and still not resolved, with whatever 'progress' can be identified as generally moving away from the idea of it being more than myth, parable, and conflicting, inconsistent 'testimony'.

Those still wedded to the idea of it containing 'genuine' testimony and witness of God and his will, cling to it and insist on continuing to study and research it, in the desperate hope that it can be 'proven' to support their particular beliefs or interpretation.

Jean is just arrogant and claims to know logic, yet commits the most egregious non-sequiters, accompanied by the most insulting ad-homs.

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

Posted on: March 16, 2011 - 2:07pm #7

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

Don't forget about Mr.

Don't forget about Mr. Metaphysics.

Posted on: March 16, 2011 - 3:23pm #8

BobSpence

Posts: 5939

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

TGBaker wrote:Don't forget

TGBaker wrote:

Don't forget about Mr. Metaphysics.

Has he been posting anywhere recently?

He seems to have been a no-show for the 1-on-1 with redneF.

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

Posted on: March 16, 2011 - 3:59pm #9

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

BobSpence1 wrote:TGBaker

BobSpence1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
Don't forget about Mr. Metaphysics.
Has he been posting anywhere recently?
He seems to have been a no-show for the 1-on-1 with redneF.

I don't think he's been own in 3 or 4 days. I haven't heard any rattling posts.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: March 16, 2011 - 4:03pm #10

redneF

Posts: 1970

Joined: 2011-01-04

Offline

BobSpence1 wrote:TGBaker

BobSpence1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
Don't forget about Mr. Metaphysics.
Has he been posting anywhere recently?
He seems to have been a no-show for the 1-on-1 with redneF.

He's a 1 trick pony. And he's all ego.

It could actually be Matt Slick, or William Lane Craig themseleves.

Or a mega fanboy of either/both of them.

Whoever it is, they're probably cramming. Trying to find something of an argument where 'he' cannot find a kingpin.

But, he's not a lateral thinker. He's an 'in the box' thinker.

I don't give him an IQ higher than 130, which is about what I'd give Matt Slick, or WLC.

That's not 'gifted'.

He'll miss it, and I'll find it.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Posted on: March 16, 2011 - 4:13pm #11

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

redneF wrote:BobSpence1

redneF wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
TGBaker wrote:
Don't forget about Mr. Metaphysics.
Has he been posting anywhere recently?
He seems to have been a no-show for the 1-on-1 with redneF.
He's a 1 trick pony. And he's all ego.
It could actually be Matt Slick, or William Lane Craig themseleves.
Or a mega fanboy of either/both of them.

Whoever it is, they're probably cramming. Trying to find something of an argument where 'he' cannot find a kingpin.
But, he's not a lateral thinker. He's an 'in the box' thinker.
I don't give him an IQ higher than 130, which is about what I'd give Matt Slick, or WLC.
That's not 'gifted'.

He'll miss it, and I'll find it.

I tried to get him to discuss his premise on his OA. He never responded to those things. I think that he is largely dependent on it and perhaps Matt Slick's TAG argument. I tried to get him to respond to the theodicy argument I posted but that goes right to the question of the premise. Cap is gonna jump around like he has ADHD on speed. TO get him to directly answer a question I guess you have to pin him down one on one.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: March 16, 2011 - 4:27pm #12

BobSpence

Posts: 5939

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

It seems to me that Mr_M had

It seems to me that Mr_M had a relatively superficial understanding of what he was presenting, which was not much more than cut and paste from his favorite 'authorities' on the subject.

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

Posted on: March 16, 2011 - 4:41pm #13

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

BobSpence1 wrote:It seems to

BobSpence1 wrote:

It seems to me that Mr_M had a relatively superficial understanding of what he was presenting, which was not much more than cut and paste from his favorite 'authorities' on the subject.

I think your probably correct or he simply could not defend the premises. This is how theists jump from a theodicy discussion to their own camp. They attempt to resolve the premise with another unresolved argument. With a god so defined there should not be a imperfect world which they move into the OA or freewill defence. Plantinga ( one of Mr. M's heroes ) attempts to present a scenario in which god looks at all the possible worlds and actualises the least evil world. This also sneaks in a proposition that there can be no world free of evil with freewill any more than a square circle. These all fall into the category of apologetics and not true theology since it is responsive rather than constructive. The resulting conclusion does get incorporated into a theological system or systematic theology but they are held with other propositions in tension. There is no working metaphysics and never has been.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: March 16, 2011 - 5:10pm #14

BobSpence

Posts: 5939

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

TGBaker wrote:BobSpence1

TGBaker wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
It seems to me that Mr_M had a relatively superficial understanding of what he was presenting, which was not much more than cut and paste from his favorite 'authorities' on the subject.

I think your probably correct or he simply could not defend the premises. This is how theists jump from a theodicy discussion to their own camp. They attempt to resolve the premise with another unresolved argument. With a god so defined there should not be a imperfect world which they move into the OA or freewill defence. Plantinga ( one of Mr. M's heroes ) attempts to present a scenario in which god looks at all the possible worlds and actualises the least evil world. This also sneaks in a proposition that there can be no world free of evil with freewill any more than a square circle. These all fall into the category of apologetics and not true theology since it is responsive rather than constructive. The resulting conclusion does get incorporated into a theological system or systematic theology but they are held with other propositions in tension. There is no working metaphysics and never has been.

His actual expressions of not understanding a number of the points we threw at him, which while being a little 'out of left field', did represent real problems with his argument, were what particularly caused me to suspect his real grasp of the logic was either superficial, or only thought through within a very narrow perspective.

He appeared to not only have not thought of those aspects, but didn't know how to counter them with more than just a restatement of what he had already presented.

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

Posted on: March 16, 2011 - 5:15pm #15

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

BobSpence1 wrote:TGBaker

BobSpence1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
It seems to me that Mr_M had a relatively superficial understanding of what he was presenting, which was not much more than cut and paste from his favorite 'authorities' on the subject.

I think your probably correct or he simply could not defend the premises. This is how theists jump from a theodicy discussion to their own camp. They attempt to resolve the premise with another unresolved argument. With a god so defined there should not be a imperfect world which they move into the OA or freewill defence. Plantinga ( one of Mr. M's heroes ) attempts to present a scenario in which god looks at all the possible worlds and actualises the least evil world. This also sneaks in a proposition that there can be no world free of evil with freewill any more than a square circle. These all fall into the category of apologetics and not true theology since it is responsive rather than constructive. The resulting conclusion does get incorporated into a theological system or systematic theology but they are held with other propositions in tension. There is no working metaphysics and never has been.
His actual expressions of not understanding a number of the points we threw at him, which while being a little 'out of left field', did represent real problems with his argument, were what particularly caused me to suspect his real grasp of the logic was either superficial, or only thought through within a very narrow perspective.
He appeared to not only have not thought of those aspects, but didn't know how to counter them with more than just a restatement of what he had already presented.

Well he certainly was cocky. His OA from comparing them recently was pretty good. I am thinking he got it from someone or M. Slick.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: March 16, 2011 - 5:59pm #16

redneF

Posts: 1970

Joined: 2011-01-04

Offline

BobSpence1 wrote:TGBaker

BobSpence1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
It seems to me that Mr_M had a relatively superficial understanding of what he was presenting, which was not much more than cut and paste from his favorite 'authorities' on the subject.

I think your probably correct or he simply could not defend the premises. This is how theists jump from a theodicy discussion to their own camp. They attempt to resolve the premise with another unresolved argument. With a god so defined there should not be a imperfect world which they move into the OA or freewill defence. Plantinga ( one of Mr. M's heroes ) attempts to present a scenario in which god looks at all the possible worlds and actualises the least evil world. This also sneaks in a proposition that there can be no world free of evil with freewill any more than a square circle. These all fall into the category of apologetics and not true theology since it is responsive rather than constructive. The resulting conclusion does get incorporated into a theological system or systematic theology but they are held with other propositions in tension. There is no working metaphysics and never has been.
His actual expressions of not understanding a number of the points we threw at him, which while being a little 'out of left field', did represent real problems with his argument, were what particularly caused me to suspect his real grasp of the logic was either superficial, or only thought through within a very narrow perspective.
He appeared to not only have not thought of those aspects, but didn't know how to counter them with more than just a restatement of what he had already presented.

Exactly.

They mistakenly assume that stating (a) is only stating (a). When (a) is a narrative. A composite.

But reality doesn't work that way, because of the butterfly effect. Stating (a) is (a) and assuming that there are no conflicts between all the constituents of the narrative (a), and the (not a)'s, is where they fail.

Their premises always fail a meta analysis. They are often logical fallacies, non sequiturs, equivocations, naked assertions, incompatible with reality, and category errors.

99.9999% of people might not pick them up. And they feel that, that is sufficient 'argument' for the exisitence of God.

That's where the equivocation comes in....

They conflate the 'existence of a god' that resides in the mind (of those 99.9999%) is = logic = universal reality

But it's not.

Never was.

Never will be.

The premise that if a claim cannot be falsified, then the claim MUST be true, and workable; is total, complete, utter bullshit.

If they 'believe' that, and 'logical align' with that, then they are 100% delusional, and uncoupled from reality, in order to 'mentally reconcile' that premise.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Posted on: March 19, 2011 - 2:38pm #17

Thunderios

Posts: 261

Joined: 2010-12-26

Offline

Just nitpicking,

Just nitpicking, but:

Quote:

i have a life outside this website... and you might find due to the fact that I have a full time job, family, friends, hobbies and children

It's actually the other way around. You have a life BECAUSE you have a job, family, friends, hobbies, children and not enough time to debate the most essential questions of life.

But like I said, I'm just nitpicking...

Posted on: March 20, 2011 - 9:56pm #18

redneF

Posts: 1970

Joined: 2011-01-04

Offline

I told him that he wouldn't

I told him that he wouldn't have to worry about elaborating any further.

Talk about anti climatic.

There's nothing compelling about his 'reasoning'. He doesn't even 'standout'.

It's a complete snore.

The guy is a troll, and just likes to jerk people around in circles, here.

The End

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Posted on: April 3, 2011 - 10:30am #19

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

redneF wrote:I told him that

redneF wrote:

I told him that he wouldn't have to worry about elaborating any further.
Talk about anti climatic.
There's nothing compelling about his 'reasoning'. He doesn't even 'standout'.
It's a complete snore.

The guy is a troll, and just likes to jerk people around in circles, here.

The End

It is to say the least tiring. Dude this hospital won't let me use electric guitar. i'm stuck on acoustic.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: April 3, 2011 - 4:02pm #20

Brian37

Posts: 16463

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

redneF wrote:I told him that

redneF wrote:

I told him that he wouldn't have to worry about elaborating any further.
Talk about anti climatic.
There's nothing compelling about his 'reasoning'. He doesn't even 'standout'.
It's a complete snore.

The guy is a troll, and just likes to jerk people around in circles, here.

The End

Cap is not a troll. His claims may be as vacuous as any other believer. But at a minimum, I do like him if not for anything but he has spent almost 3 years here and hasn't run away like a scared baby. Of course I think anyone's invisible man in the sky claim is absurd, but I can like the person, even if I don't like everything they claim.

Jean on the other hand is a fucking asshole and is a troll.

I like Cap, even if I don't like his claims.