what faith you
Offline
You can't prove there isn't a God. You believe it - I believe you are sincere - but that's your faith. You can't prove it.
I believe there is a God. I believe He designed, made the world and everything in it. I believe the sun, moon, stars, and penguins show great design - just to name a couple.
I think you guys have more faith than I do when it comes to believing preposterous stuff. My hat's off to your great faith - it's just illogical faith to me.
Man could not even make one acorn or one bee - this is evident to you guys. You can't explain magnetism or gravity - yet you think there was no designer? Great faith I say.
Offline With your design argument you are making a fallacy of equivocation. You are equivocation Non biological entities with biological ones. The reason biological entities need no design is because they are chemical systems of reproduction which allows for the process of evolution. And believe me, I have studied evolution and system dynamics for years. The solution is vastly more elegant than design is. It is actually a much better solution to biological engines. If you too had studied proteomics, proteonomics, genomics, Hox flow, evo-devo and biomolecular kinetics, you would know this as well as I.
Also, you are making the verificationist fallacy. You are not looking at elements which debunk your view (hence you are not within empirical rights to hold them). The concept of a designed has many problems as well. In fact, as I showed below, it is a reductio ad absurdum:
You guys crack me up. Here you come with your huggermugger labels. I ask you a simple question and you stick a label on it then fall over laughing to yourself about what you have accomplished as if you have answered the question.
First you set this up that you don't have to prove there isn't a God - why? Well that's simple, it's because of this handy little label!
Then I ask the simple question why design doesn't imply a designer - again you have a little label that you think answers that.
Then, I only have the hammer of application. Your faith again doesn't have to wrestle in that arena - again a label.
Then, "read my book" - and you'll see why I'm so mixed up (deludedgod, paraphrased).
Again, deludedgod, why is it that laptops at Walmart have designers, but the smallest housefly is more complicated, can see, fly, detect, and land on your reasoning and recognize it for what it is - yet you can't see "Designer" causing "design".
I feel like I'm at a meeting in the "Flat Earth Society"!
Hammertime!
Mephibosheth (label free)
Offline
Roisin,
A lot of wind and noise there, but no rain.
I think you only burned a few calories, and you might want to think about the design and thus the Designer of calories, also the best use of them.
You're another worker in the "label and shipping" department here.
As far as your marketing, I for one am not sold. Marketers sell themselves first you know, and you're off to a bad start whatever your product it - I couldn't make it out.
Does the great design of the world around you upset you?
Mephibosheth (taking in calories)
Offline Most design is recognized as great because it works within, and overcomes, the obstacles to achieving some end, using the very physical rules from which the obstacles stem. A design is called efficient whe it does so without unecessary steps, and elegant it further seems natural. That's my take on design, and I could be wrong... moving forward.
1. I am omnipotent, what obstacles are there for me?2. I am omnipotent, what ends could I want, since I know all, and nothing moves without my will?3. I am omnipotent: I determine physical laws. Why would I create them in the first place? (Creating limitations does contradict omnipotence, by the by).
By that basic model of how we view design, how could a creator ever be considered such? If he had to design anything, he would have to be limited. It's like the problem of evil, but for engineers.
Offline First you set this up that you don't have to prove there isn't a God - why? Well that's simple, it's because of this handy little label!
Why are you so thick-headed that you cannot grasp the basics of epistemology. It is because of the epistemology of burden of proof. There is no such thing as burden of disproof. How fucking hard is this to understand? Why can you not understand the ad ignoratium and negative proof fallacy. Have you no respect for basic logic?
Then I ask the simple question why design doesn't imply a designer - again you have a little label that you think answers that.
Because there was no design. Again, read to understand.
Then, I only have the hammer of application. Your faith again doesn't have to wrestle in that arena - again a label.
By using the word faith you continue to demonstare ignorance of epistemology. Why is this so hard to understand?
Then, "read my book" - and you'll see why I'm so mixed up (deludedgod, paraphrased).
you did not read it, did you?
Again, deludedgod, why is it that laptops at Walmart have designers, but the smallest housefly is more complicated, can see, fly, detect, and land on your reasoning and recognize it for what it is - yet you can't see "Designer" causing "design".
I answered the question in my essay but you refused to read my essay and and are now positing the same question as though I never posted a refutation! You are the most dishonest people I have ever engaged in debate with. How dare you make such a comment in the full knowledge that I ripped you apart preemptively, yet sit there as if I did not.
The short and non-technical answer (which perhaps your quarter-ounce of grey matter can comprehend) is because our conclusions of the design of an entity or whether it came into being through natural processes do not depend on the complexity of the entity but rather whether we can explain it through natural process. Why is this so hard to understand? Stars, galaxies, planets, life, we can explain all these things in terms of natural process. If you don't believe me, read what I write! Your ignorance of how the world works stuns me. Let me just reiterate:
If you want to understand why the assertion that atheism requires faith is absurd, read this:
The Argument From Ignorance and its uses and abuses
If you wish to see a natural account for complex biological engines proved true, read these:
If you wish to see the concept of God reduced the absurd, read this:
A Clarification Regarding My Position Relative to theological noncognitivism
If you want to see religion in particular reduced to the absurd, read this:
Religion and False Anthropocentricism
If you wish to see a naturalist account for the universe, read these:
If you don't want to read them, please cease and desist making assertions that I prerufted. Why don't you just admit that you are too lazy to read or comprehend what I wrote and simply cannot be fucked to engage in real debate, but still have an obsessive/compulsive need to repeat statements that were blasted apart 200 years before you were born, then why don't you just check into the first neuropsychiatric clinic you find to get your OCD worked out?
Let me tell you right now, if this were a real, formal debate, if you acted in the manner you have up to the present, the moderator woud tell you, in no uncertain terms, to fuck off.
Why don't you just admit that you are probably no more informed about the subjects of this debate ("atheism having faith" and "design" are idiocies to be refuted via logic and science respectively) than the toddler in your avatar?
I feel like I'm at a meeting in the "Flat Earth Society"!
You are a dishonest cretin who refuses to acknowledge he has been refuted and has to project his pathetic ignorance of epistemology and science onto people whose factual understanding exceeds your own by multiple orders of magnitude. If you don't have a genuine rebuttal to make, if you cannot grasp the concept that burden of disproof is an epistemic fallacy, if you refuse to read scientific articles refuting your position, if you are so utterly dishonest that you ignore it when people shorn you apart, then get out.
If you wish to make genuine arguments based on logic and science, we will be happy to have you, but unless you cease and desist this trollish behaivour, you will be looked upon as a tragic head case. (this is certainly my present impression of you). You have thus far not presented a single argument. You make many assertions, I tear these assertions asunder with my essay compilation, you refuse to read my essays, and continue to make the same assertions, and then accuse me of not refuting your assertions?
Could you quite possibly be any more dishonest?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Offline Most design is recognized as great because it works within, and overcomes, the obstacles to achieving some end, using the very physical rules from which the obstacles stem. A design is called efficient whe it does so without unecessary steps, and elegant it further seems natural. That's my take on design, and I could be wrong... moving forward.
1. I am omnipotent, what obstacles are there for me?2. I am omnipotent, what ends could I want, since I know all, and nothing moves without my will?3. I am omnipotent: I determine physical laws. Why would I create them in the first place? (Creating limitations does contradict omnipotence, by the by).
By that basic model of how we view design, how could a creator ever be considered such? If he had to design anything, he would have to be limited. It's like the problem of evil, but for engineers.
Magilum,
It's pretty efficient design-work when you can "speak the world into existence" as God says He did and I believe.
I think you guys have the "projection" problem: you make the mistake of thinking God is like you. Since you can't figure things out you don't think God can either. Your concept of God is limited to your empty faith which by your own admission has no application.
Deludedgod says if I will just come behind the barn he has that all explained in his confused gibberish - which I guess you have faith in too.
Talk about efficient design. Why is it that you can't put your answer to the design question in simple words that everyone can understand if your argument is so real and powerful.
Simplicity of design applies to argument too.
My simple question is this: a lap top implies a designer. No one would accept the idea that a lap top had designed itself - there was a designer.
All of creation laughs at you with design - whether it's a little hummingbird flying over the gulf then dropping out of the sky out of gas, or the penguin which some of you have belittled as to design but which you couldn't keep up with for a month in his environment. Again, great design asks you the simple question: why doesn't this shout DESIGNER?
And again, don't go behind the barn to tell me.
Don't label this question then dismiss it.
Don't lose your battle with your own spirit and call names and refer to designed activities that don't apply here.
Just put it in simple terms so that the feebleminded can understand your answer: OK?
Mephibosheth (looking for simple answers)
Offline If it does shout "designer" - What makes the designer the Judeo-Christian God instead of natural processes?
Why do you make that leap, mephibosheth?
The best I can say is "I don't know who/what designed the universe and you don't either"
"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
Offline I'm going to try another way, adapted from The Case Against god, to show why design is a "bad" way of looking at things.
How do we determine what is designed? When we look at things that we "design" we compare them to natural things like trees and bushes. To know if something is designed requires you to compare it to a natural thing. Now if we determine design from comparison to natural things how then are we able to determine if natural things are designed?
Also, if we are designed so well, how do you explian blind spots? our accpeptability to cancer? (some psych stuff coming up sorry) Change blindness(our inability to notice slight changes in a scene)? Inattentional blindness/amnesia(our inability to see/remember things we do not pay attention to)?
The reason we see design is simple. Our brains are pattern recognizng machines. We can see completely "chaotic" things and then we will try to infer "design" within these chaotic things. We are even able to remember better "designed" things then "chaotic" things. As an example, there is such a thing as "well formness" in pattern recognition. If you put a a jumbo of letters such as "jzyex" in front of someone for a short amount of time, they will have a harder time remembered then if you present "whorr" for the same amount of time.
Offline I'd also like to ask. Does it take you faith to not believe in santa? The celestial teapot? The snarfwidget?
Offline
I think you guys have the "projection" problem: you make the mistake of thinking God is like you.
No mistake has been made by any atheist on this matter. There is no ontology for god, so, by thinking you have any clue as to it's existence, or nature, you are the one with the problem. However, because you are a moron, and a dishonest one, you'll skip the part where you're supposed to show us how anyone could possibly think god is "like" anything, and spit out some more ridiculous metaphors about the weather, or feasting at a table.
Since you can't figure things out you don't think God can either. Your concept of God is limited to your empty faith which by your own admission has no application.
Another example of you repeating the same garbage that has already been addressed. I should thank you, however, on behalf of, again, the guests and silent members that are reading this, who are no doubt coming to the same conclusion about you that I have.
Deludedgod says if I will just come behind the barn he has that all explained in his confused gibberish - which I guess you have faith in too.
Just because your pea gravel-sized brain can't comprehend it hardly makes it jibberish. And your statement accusing people of having "faith" in science shows your complete ignorance of what science is, and what it can or cannot do. You're ignorant, and you're a christian, and that's not a coincidence.
Talk about efficient design. Why is it that you can't put your answer to the design question in simple words that everyone can understand if your argument is so real and powerful.Simplicity of design applies to argument too.
No, it doesn't. Not always, at least. Especially since simplicity is a subjective term. To molecular biologists, I would bet DG's essays are quite simple in their explanation. However, these same people may find any explanation of the Cover-2 defense beyond their comprehension. Unfortunately, as I have come to learn, not everything has a simple explanation. The fact that you apparently believe it should speaks volumes about your religious viewpoint.
My simple question is this: a lap top implies a designer. No one would accept the idea that a lap top had designed itself - there was a designer.
This has been refuted at least 4 times by 4 different people. If you're simply too dumb to understand why this argument is nonsense, then just move on.
All of creation laughs at you with design - whether it's a little hummingbird flying over the gulf then dropping out of the sky out of gas, or the penguin which some of you have belittled as to design but which you couldn't keep up with for a month in his environment. Again, great design asks you the simple question: why doesn't this shout DESIGNER?
Obviously, any attempt to answer this will go completely over your head. You've even admitted as much. Why should anyone bother responding with an intelligent, evidence-based argument?
Don't label this question then dismiss it.
Another dishonest statement. It's been addressed numerous times. Just because you don't like the answer, or can't understand it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Don't lose your battle with your own spirit and call names and refer to designed activities that don't apply here.
Nice projection. You're one step away from placing your hands over your ears, and screaming, "LALALALALALALALALA, I CAN't HEAR YOU."
Just put it in simple terms so that the feebleminded can understand your answer: OK? Mephibosheth (looking for simple answers)
You seriously cannot see the flaw in drawing a parallel between a living being, and an inanimate object?
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
Offline It's pretty efficient design-work when you can "speak the world into existence" as God says He did and I believe. I think you guys have the "projection" problem: you make the mistake of thinking God is like you. Since you can't figure things out you don't think God can either.
Just the opposite, actually. I have trouble understanding how an omnipotent being would have anything in common with a land mammal like me. "Spoke into existence?" With what? A voice? Why does he have a voice? He's got nothing to communicate with.
Your concept of God is limited to your empty faith which by your own admission has no application.
Faith isn't an answer, it's the withdrawal of the question. If we're having this conversation, you can't constantly refer to something that admits no conversation.
[Incomprehensible ad hominems snipped.]mephibosheth wrote:My simple question is this: a lap top implies a designer. No one would accept the idea that a lap top had designed itself - there was a designer.
That's the watchmaker argument -- refuted by the theory of evolution: something we actually have evidence for.
[Ad nauseam argument snipped.]mephibosheth wrote:Mephibosheth (looking for simple answers)
Liar. Faith admits no questions.
Offline I have decided to take you up on your offer and write a complete account of evolutionary biology of such simplicity that even a child could understand it. No specialist language, no MSc level concepts, nothing at all of such complexity. Although ecological dynamics and Hox flow mechanisms and protein dynamics are subjects of intense complexity, the mechanisms of evolution are of such simplicity that even a child could understand them, and that you lack the ability to understand how the mechanisms of evolution (a process which is infinitely more complex and elegant than "design"
function astounds me.
The two best books written in the same format for which I intend to write about evolutionary mechanisms are The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin and Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennet.
On another note, I intend to write a very precise and technical paper of MDAC flow and Hox mechanisms which explains in molecular detail how complex structures like the heart, the eye, the hand etc may form without design.
It is dishonest of you to dismiss papers outright on grounds that you cannot understand them.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Offline There's nothing to quote from you guys. You have answered nothing. It's obvious to me you have proved my premise. You believe there is no God. You can't prove it.
You "think" you believe in nothing - actually you aren't facing the fact that: you trust in your own mind. You have set a difficult course for yourself - and as you have admitted, a course that goes nowhere NOW or IN THE END.
Your wrong turn starts by not accepting that: GOD IS. God created the world around you with artful design. You dismiss it, but it gets to you. What you won't face - great design all around you - gets to you.
Thus, you call me names - but what am I? - nothing. You even call GOD names and mock God. But what you don't realize is how moronic you look to the whole universe.
Even the ass knows its master but not you.
I know - and you know - you haven't explained anything.
It's been nothing but the crackling of thorns under the pot of confusion.
It's tough to be your own God, I'll hand you that, in fact it's impossible. You can't navigate through this designed world drawing up your own map. You've chosen a hard way. You're making bricks and getting your own straw yet you're not open to deliverance in Christ. You spit on Christ - even though He loved and still loves the spitter. Yet you are closing yourselves off from the blessing.
Why? I don't know. It's a world of ignorance I don't want to explore.
Mephibosheth (life is good in the palace)
Offline Excuse me, cripple mooching off King David (and by extension your God)
You failed to answer my question - How do you make the leap from "designer" to the God of the Bible?
You keep telling us that God made all this stuff like you KNOW (not just believe) so where is your proof?
Don't tell me that all you have is belief and then in the next sentence start claiming factual knowledge. No one will buy it.
"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
Offline I know - and you know - you haven't explained anything.
EXCUSE ME? I explained absolutely everything you could possibly want to know about the processes and arguments in question. I refuted every single one of your claims. Why do you continue to ignore me?
Why the fuck don't you just admit that you cannot understand the refutations, and that this argument has clearly gone far, far over your head into the stratosphere, and you are whiny because you do not want to admit that you utterly lack the cranial capacity to understand simple refutations to your strawman and outdated nonsense that has been repeatedly ripped apart by philosophers and scientsts for the last 150 years?
Why do you continue to ignore my refutations? Have you even read anything I have written on the matter, or are you too vain, stupid and ignorant to click on the links?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Offline And it's back to assertions from mephibosheth.
The essay is merely a defense of my position. It is merely acadamia and reflects my interest in apologetics.
I don't really understand what applying "non-faith" to my life is supposed to me. It is someone akin to asking a teetotalar how his alcoholism affects his life. I am vastly happier, however, being irrelgious then religious. The truths of why I am here which I pursue (note that I said pursue, not merely read out of a book of fiction) are 100 orders of magnitude more incredibly and wonderful than a compilation of fairy tales which advocate nonsense, superstition and magic. I am vastly more impressed and overwhelmed with a rational scientific worldview of the cosmos then I ever could be believing in fairy tales or magic.
However, if you wish for me to go utterly off topic, I shall. There is a growing body of research indicating that human happiness is inherently linked to helping others. So that is where I put my talents. If I wanted to make money, I simply would have obtained a neurosurgery qualification and made $950,000 a year. Instead I became a molecular biologist and work in proteomics, genetics, Hox flow and vector based gene therapy research. In essence my livelihood revolves around the attempts at total alleviation of the most terrible diseases: Lesch-Nyhans, Tay-Sachs, Prader-Willi, Huntington's, this work is essentially a pancea for any and all MIiM (Mendelian Inheritance in Man).
That's great...but it has nothing to do with the thread. And threadjacking and steering is frowned upon.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
As Deludedgod said - this is totally off-topic.
You have provided absolutely nothing to back up a single one of your assertions.
It looks to me like all you're going to do is tell stories and proselytize. You didn't go back, read the material offered and respond, you just posted your own story (which was simply proselytizing).
That doesn't go very far around here.
[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Susan and Rick,
I'm going back here, reading the material and trying to respond, not continue to give proof to my original statement (such as: "I do believe in God - that He designed/created, blah, blah, trying to give evidence such as how that applies to life, etc).
This excerp from the Law which God gave to Moses is of course right on point. Yes, this is radical discipline, and though I don't fully understand why God had such harsh discipline for a lazy rebellious son I believe it is Love. God is love beyond my understanding.
I have to go off point a little to back up my statement to this on point question. Job, you remember, went through a refining process due to Satan's slander of Job and God's confidence in Job. He didn't understand what was going on, but He didn't curse God like his wife wanted him to. This applies in the sense that I don't understand your pertinent example, but I accept it because, like Job, I know God is love and just like deludedgod is ever increasing in his reasoning skills, I am striving to get to know God better all the time too, and I know God is love more and more.
I don't think there would be many rebellious, lazy, stubborn sons.
Mephibosheth (crippled, doesn't get out much)
[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]
I thought the claim was atheism and theism both depend on faith.
Why do you believe this?
deludedgod,
I respect and appreciate your work with the diseases. Thanks for that.
Threadjacking, steering, trolling, whatever. I don't think I'm a troll because I'm not under the bridge trying to manipulate or be tricky behind the scenes, etc. Do you know this, that my book tells me not to do that? And we won't mention what my book is.
I try to give you reasons that back up my premise that I do believe in God, (top of the page) and you say it's off point thank you. One of my proofs is that my belief in the designs of God applies to life, my life - not yours, no, that would be proselitizing. Why would I want you to be happy, a guy that believes in a God that sent His Son to die so that everybody could come into His presence forever. That wouldn't bring me here would it?
Now here's my argument to you: You answer it. We are such worlds apart on this that one of us must be right and one of us must be crazy.
I come on and I try to tell how my view applies to life: Married 39 years to a perfect wife, 4 children, 5 grandchildren, 42 years a carpenter in same town, happy beyond belief, not afraid to die, looking forward with great hope to heaven, experiencing a lot of it now, totally at peace, conscious of having sinned and conscious of being forgiven, etc. You say I believe in fairy tales and infer I am nuts.
Ok, I say- how does your premise that there is no God (whether it's faith or nothing of the sort)....how does your vacuumk, void, non belief apply to loving your wife, death, guilt, conscience, tragedy and peace of mind? I can tell you how my faith applies to all of these. If you are sound and right in your position - then, let's hear it!
It will be right on point because you have firmly asserted that my position is ridiculous and yours is the rational one - therefore it is reasonable to me that it would apply to life.
If it doesn't apply to life - it is a pet rock. It has no application other than being something you don't want to trip over or get hit with.
Mephibosheth (watching for falling rock, but already crippled)
Ok. Seriously. How can you not have gotten the points yet? Don't you realize that your emotional rant isn't an argument? And even if it was, it would still not be an argument for your beliefs being true, it would be an argument as to the supposed benefit of holding these beliefs, true or not. That's not special at all. People who believe in Allah say the same things.
We don't care how happy you think you are. We care about how your beliefs line up with REALITY (they don't). I can't believe I even have to point this out.
Sorry, mate. I have to agree with KSMB. Now, I know there are some atheists who wish Christianity etc was true, or that God exists. I really do not. I think the truths which are found in rationality and science are greater than can possibily be imagined by the pathetic box-like worldview of religion. However, even if I did not hold that position, and I wished that God exists, I still would not believe in him. I simply do not have the ability to decieve myself like that. I cannot convince myself of that which has no evidence.
Now, the reason I am annoyed with you is because you came on with OP arguments saying atheism was "preposterous" and "required faith" and that design was "obvious". And it took a long time and a lot of threats to force you to read my responses, and when you finally did, you hopefully realized that I had ripped your OP claims in half like rice paper. Which is why you turned to emotionalism and started asking irrelevant questions about how non-belief affects my life. I ask you: How on Earth could something I do not believe in affect my life?
The answer is it doesn't. Just like my belief in the non-existence of fairies and the Loch Ness Monster does not and should not affect my life. The only way in which it affects my life is the time it consumes on this forum. I do not dwell on death, it is unhealthy and can lead to, well...early death. The positive things I do believe, about the use of rationality and science to answer questions, do affect my life, but the conclusion I reached as a result of using rationality and science (God does not exist) really does not. I also managed to reach the conclusion, using rationality and science, that Homeopathy is utter bullshit. This makes me an ahomeopathist. This does not affect my life except the moments I spend debunking homeopathy because it is dangerous, nonsensical psuedoscience.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Well, deludedgod,
I have to appreciate your frankness. I have to admit too that I'm surprised you were honest that it doesn't affect your life. I really don't think you are faking any of this.
I have not been carrying this on as a recreation - I'm not sure what your motive is to get people to see it like you. I say that because since atheism is not a motivating factor that applies to your life I can't understand why you waste time with me here. But I don't have to either.
But I was going to say this isn't recreation with me, it's serious. I'm not involved in a parade of anything, a debating contest or battle of wits - Jesus is my life. The unseen reality to me is the eternal. The seen is temporary. I'm just saying I haven't been playing games with you or trying to be funny.
I see there is no future in trying to convince you of the truth of the Bible, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit. I'm convinced at this point.
I want to say that for a while I thought less of you, but now I believe you really believe (or don't believe, however you want to say it). I don't understand it. I don't understand you.
I don't know how you are going to face some issues of life like tragedy, guilt, injustice, death. You are a mystery to me. I can't understand how someone can read the Bible and not see the truth of it. I can't see how someone can read Eccleastes and not see that's the experience we are all going through.
But I think I am going to have to give up as far as myself, and I'll pray for you.
Mephibosheth
Hello mephibosheth(interesting name, but do you understand the truth behind that story?).
You are correct in your beliefs, but your approach to it is all wrong. The world around you is a thousand more important times than the one in your mind, and you must treat it as such. Many look at the world and do not see me - I am saddened by this. Some look at this world and see me, and this makes me happy. Those who do not see me, yet still know I am I am pleased by the most, because it is the hardest to stay faithful. However, those who do not even look at the world are the most foolish - you exist in the outside world, so how can you understand yourself if you cannot undertand where you are?
Do not let the words of a book rule you; I gave you a heart which is greater than anything you have - follow it.
Yes I do understand the truth behind the story of Mephibosheth. But that's off point.
Concerning your suggestion "follow your heart" - no thanks I've got something more solid to trust. Guard it, yes. I plan to keep my focus on Jesus.
It is said that when you "come around the horn, first land is the north star". I've come around and I see The Star.
He who trusts in his own mind is a (_ _ _ _)
Mephibosheth
You misunderstand - believe in me because your heart and mind tells you to, not because a book tells you to.
And I don't think you really understand the meaning behind Mephibosheth, or you would not have chosen it as your name.
Why would I be faking anything? We’re on the internet.
Well, I have multiple reasons for engaging in debate. I am not wasting time. I am trying to see how many people are persuading by rational discourse and the use of logic. You are not one of these people. You have faith and admit that you had faith. I had no way of knowing that you could not be dissuaded by logical argument until you informed me verbatim. I pursue this for multiple reasons. One is merely academic. I wish to test my arguments by baptism of fire. This is the best way of doing it. The other is because I believe that this is true and it is merely within my best interest to convince people it is true for no other reason that it pains me that people would devote their life to a delusion while before them lays of a vast ocean of scientific truth.
The greatest aim that one can have in life is to pursue truth. To read out of a set of mythologies compilated in the Bronze Age does not fall under the category of the pursuit of truth. You should subscribe to a scientific journal or magazine and simply discover the intellectual miracles we produce by the hour. You should read about cosmology and astrophysics and biology and discover the beauty, the deepest beauty of nature found right down to the nanometrical level up to the motions of planets and stars. There is an ocean of truth before you in the forms of perfect and intricate natural harmony as discovered by scientific truth. Surely, you would not waste an opportunity to pursue it?
I’m not trying to be funny. I am dead serious.
Actually, there is a very easy way to convince me of its validity. Simply offer me genuine evidence of its validity. Not anecdotal evidence or personal-only evidence. Real evidence.
What’s not to understand? In fact, I thought I would be relatively easy to understand considering that I have a personality rather like Dr. Spock’s.
You know, I have a Muslim friend, who, when I shorn all of his logical arguments in half, said exactly the same thing: “How can you not see the Truth (with a capital T) in the exalted perfection of the holy Qur’an”?
Perhaps you two should get together and see who can have a contest of who can be holier than thou?
And I shall think for you.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
And if you had understood the fear of the Lord perhaps you would not have taken the name Alpha and Omega
Nah... you're fogging this up. You have no idea how to be unerringly devoted to your prophet. It's obvious that you misinterpreted my writings. Furthermore, the incomplete and incomprehensible nature of the transfer of my divine ideas to the rudimentary and necessarily limited medium of internet text has rendered the writings somewhat convoluted, in that they don't say exactly what they mean when they are saying what you should interpret.
Yea, these are the words of Hambydammit, and you still owe me 10% Shikko.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
When trying to convince theists that there is no god, we must be aware of the immense amount of meaning that is associated with this concept. If we want the participant to stop their god belief, we must expect them to experience a loss of meaning. Thus, it is natural for Meph to question how we might deal with immense tragedy that might force us to question the meaning of it all.
Meph, we as human beings all have to find meaning for ourselves in this life, and I trust that you can do it again if you leave god, much like many of us here. I want to say it's been you all along who has done this, not god. In the Disney movie Dumbo, he believed that he had to hold on to his feather in order to be able to fly, and he was afraid that if he dropped it, he would not be able to fly. But he let go, and discovered it was in himself all along.
You can drop your own feather, mephibosheth, and I assure you you won't fall down.
The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...
Contrary to Christians' belief, atheists have been coping with tragedy for millenia.
Contrary to Christians' belief, the bible only appears plausible to those who live in a culture inundated with it. In a vaccuum, it looks just like every other mythology, only a bit more convoluted and contrived, since it's culled from so many different myths. Bet you didn't know that we know from whence nearly every story in the bible descended, eh?
Have you ever read Ecclesiastes without trying to attach Christianity to it? Notice there's nothing about Jesus, and in fact, it very specifically says that life is meaningless and death is the end. The writer is absolutely agnostic about the possibility of life after death.
I'll continue to think for you, although I suspect neither of our efforts will have much effect.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hamby, I think the best we can hope for is that we have given him the intellectual and personal courage that it takes to let go of god.
The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...
Ding.
The Isolated Society Thought Experiment- A Short Essay on Religious Conditioning
(You know, I almost never get to post this particular piece of work. I should do so more often. I rather like it)
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I would think that the best we can hope for is not whether or not we've planted the seed of doubt in Mephisiuihrfhegrflhevvhsvvdlusgd's brain, but rather that the unknown number of readers of this thread--those that may perhaps be on the proverbial fence--see the arguments set forth and judge them on their merits. I really can't see how anyone reading this thread can take any of Meph's points seriously. His arguments are the same ones a kid would use to explain how his favorite blanket comforts him when he's sick. There was a thread awhile back talking about this type of influence, referencing the movie Thank You for Smoking. I think it was a BGH joint.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
Very correct. Most times there is little chance you will convince a debate opponent of anything, much less a complete abandonment of their world view, though it does happen from time to time.
More importantly, as you cited, are the ones watching and taking in the arguments from both sides. They are the target and one seldom realizes what effect, if any, is being had because they are the silent observers.
Here is the thread.
Then share that proof if you haven't already.
Oh, and I can't prove what I don't have (faith in the no god)
"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
Right, right; I forgot about the time dilation effects of your posts: 16 hours had passed RIGHT AFTER you posted your prophecy. I am unworthy.
Right after I get my steak dinner, beeyotch!
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
jcgadfly,
Hello? hello? hello? I said in the original post you have faith (ok, in nothing) and I have faith in God which I can't prove (to you).
You have evidently proved your empty perspective to yourself and are applying it (to nothing).
I have had no takers as to how your faith (in nothing) applies to death, tragedy, injustice, love of spouse, forgiveness, etc - in other words, WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW. You all have tap-danced around that question. What you want is to parade your sophistry in essays no one can (or would want to) understand.
You guys are promoting your stand as great, however it, like your faith (in nothing) - applies to NOTHING. About all you can say with conviction is: there is no God. It applies to what? Answer, it applies to: there is no God. Maybe "Rational" is the wrong word for your "Squad".
Now if you wanted to sell me something and I said, "what is this used for?" and you answered, "It is used for itself", or "It has no application" - do you think I'd buy it?
My faith applies to life, death, peace of mind, conscience, love of enemies, work, marriage - all of life and life eternal, happiness, strength in tragedy, everything. I have shared a lot of that with you. It applies to what's happening now, and what will happen.
I still say you guys, which I have been enjoying talking and listening to, have a lousy faith. It's an unhappy pursuit that goes nowhere. I wish you were open to the fact that Jesus is Lord. That would be a miracle however, something I'm not capable of.
Mephibosheth (now, back to the table)
To have faith in nothing is to say you have a full hole. Atheists lack a belief in a supernatural god - any supernatural god. That is it.
This is a meaningless statement. Almost as meaningless as your faith.
Many answers have been given. What kind of answer are you looking for? As I stated earlier, atheism is a lack of belief in a god. All other issues depend on the individual. Atheism is not a world view so it would not apply to the topics you listed. Theism is a world view and in many cases detrimental to the topics you listed. You are trying to compare apples to oranges here.
Wow! You got it! Congratulations. Now, perhaps you can remove you religious glasses and look at our side of things. Religion is crammed down people throats on a daily basis. This is where the "rational" come in. The US is supposed to practice separation of church and state and this is happening less and less these days. No rational thought is applied - just the ever pervading push by theists to force everyone to think like they do.
Wrong - your personality applies to life, death, peace of mind, conscience, love of enemies, work, marriage - all of life and life eternal, happiness, strength in tragedy, everything. Every theist has his/her own interpretation of their 'faith' based on their personality and this is what affects their views on these topics. Theism just isn't needed.
Thanks! I sure hope I have lousy faith. In fact, mine is so lousy I don't have any at all!!
Oh no! I am not unhappy in the least!! You sound unhappy, though. Have you tried Atheism? It could cure what ails you.
No, thank you. Tried it already. It didn't do much for me. Sort of like taking a sugar pill to feel better when, in fact, I felt fine without it.
Just drop the word faith altogether. You are still making an ad ignoratium and a fallacy of negative proof.
You should read a logic book.
This, again, is an ad ignoratium and fallacy of negative proof.
The question is a non sequitur. Atheism is not a "faith". Even to call it a philosophy would be extravagant. You continue to make a fallacy of negative proof, which you have now successfully mixed with an absurd conclusion.
Due respect, sir, but you are an idiot. "Sophistry" is an illogical or false argument meant to decieve. But being that you lack the cranial capacity to understand the arguments, it is highly fallacious for you to accuse anyone of "sophistry" when in fact, that is exactly what you are doing, therefore I suspect you are engaging in a psychological projection defense mechanism.
And you are making an ad nauseam fallacy.
This statement has no meaning. However, I am pleased to see that you appear to have an inkling of a notion that atheism is not a faith. By the way, you still have not justified which atheist stance you are referring to! Don't you know that atheism is dichotomous?
Or are you ignorant of that as well?
Why? Why should a statement requisite that it apply to emotional situations in life? For me, it does not. God's non-existence or existence should be based on fact. Cold, hard fact. And unfortunately, you do not have the facts on your side. In fact, the facts say that the very concept is a reducto ad absurdum. Here, I'll show you:
On the Problem of Interaction and the Concluding Piece of the Series: The Absurdity of an Immaterial Mind
By the way, your implied conclusion that this is irrational is a non sequitur.
We aren't selling you anything. We are discussing facts. If you are truly honest and within your empirical rights, you will realize that the validity of a statement does not depend on the emotional comfort it provides. That is called an ad consequetiam fallacy. Like I said before, if you wish to discuss the merits of belief in X or non-belief in X, we examine factual basis or lack thereof. We do not, as you are doing, even bother to discuss "does X make me feel good"
This does not make it valid. Only a security blanket.
Every time you use that word in conjunction, you are making an negative proof fallacy and another ad ignoratium fallacy.
It does not need to. Being not a belief per se but rather a dismissal of someone else's, all that matters is the lack of factual basis for the belief of the opposition. So every time you make that same argument, being that you hold the positive position, you are making another negative proof fallacy and another ad ignoratium fallacy. Again, you are being deeply intellectually dishonest by essentially admitting that your belief depends on its emotional comfort as opposed to factual basis (or in the case of nonbelief, the lack of factual basis for the position of the opponent).
You do not have the empirical right to use the term "fact" until you provide factual evidence. Proving it to yourself does not count.
If you ask us to provide evidence for "non-belief", you are failing to distinguish the dichotmous nature of atheism and making another negative proof fallacy. However, if you wish to see God reduced to the absurd, I will be fair and comply with the request you will no doubt make. Please read this:
On the Problem of Interaction and the Concluding Piece of the Series: The Absurdity of an Immaterial Mind
As would be you thinking for yourself.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
That has 2 meanings there (both true) - he's not capable of thinking for himself, and his thinking for himself would be a miracle.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Again, having faith in nothing is akin to bald being a hair color or "off" being a TV channel.
That being said I have proof of the reliability of humans being able to gather around each other and help each other cope in the face of "to death, tragedy, injustice, love of spouse, forgiveness, etc - in other words, WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW.". Real people providing real help in the face of real problems - no faith needed.
Where does your Invisofriend aka God come into this picture? Oh yeah - "I'll pray for you" and doing nothing else. Mephibosheth, that's not only uselsss but unbiblical - read James and you'll see what I mean.
If you receive solace from your faith in the Cloud Being, great. Just understand that the rest of us like to use real live humans as our support network.
Your product analogy, incidentally, is exactly what those here think about the God you're trying to sell. You bring up stories of satisfied customers. We bring up stories of unsatisfied customers and you say "Oh they weren't doing it right" or "They didn't have enough of it" or some such unbiblical malarkey.
"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
Super logic? Is that First-order logic, first-order predicate logic, second-order predicate logic, modal logic, fuzzy logic?
My point is that your 'discussion of faith' creates a blunder in reasoning. You can't assume that there is a burden of disproof.
I think you're projecting your own problem on to me, and I can demonstrate it.
My point above is that your claim is false, because it violates basic logic. You, on the other hand, don't have a clue as to what basic logic is, so you must simply go back to pounding away at me about your misconceptions of faith.
So to YOU, the world is a big, confusing place... you don't have the foggiest clue as to why holding to a burden of disproof is a logical fallacy, so you have not choice but to assume that the world is just a nail, so that you can keep pounding away with your 'hammer' of 'talking incessantly about faith", regardless of what the actual point before you is!
So let me make it clear to you here:
Shifting the Burden of Proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. This is not the case. You can't assume the truth of a proposition without proof. If we could assume truth until disproven, we would be stuck with the ridiculous conclusion that anything we said to be true, must be true, and would only become false when proven false.
See how crazy your argument is?
Can you actually read this, or can I look forward to you seeing it as just another nail for you to pound away at with your hammer. If you don't respond to these points on logic, you prove my point that you are projecting your own problem onto me.
I'm using logic to show that you are very confused when you hold that there is a burden of disproof, and you're so uttery incapable of grasping this that you can't even stick to the topic. Thanks for already proving that you are in fact projecting your own problems onto me... whatever I write, you'll turn it into a nail and just blather on about 'faith'
You could be replaced with a small shell script, it could be programmed to just say "faith" a lot, no matter the content of the post you are 'replying' to...
You're not.You're just making me weep for humanity.
You dont' know what you're talking about.
And you don't seem to care.
That's not faith. That's human vanity.
Quit trying to save face and admit that you're lost.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
DG, I read your posts here, and your continued observation that our friend doesn't even appear to read your posts. I think he does look at them, briefly, but that the projection I've identified in my post above explains what is going on: No matter what words he sees, he only has one tool: a hammer.
So whatever you write, you're gonna get the same brutish, ignorant 'faith based' reply, because our friend can only interpret every post as a 'nail'... something pointed and dangerous to be blotted out, slammed away, hidden in a wall.
Now, can you all see why psychodynamic theory works?
1) The paranoid/anxious/religiuos type deals with anxiety evoking threats by projections.
2) The projection is a road to his mindset.
And when you look at this thread, you see the same thing:
continued dodges, each dealt with as if they were all the same post.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
With your design argument you are making a fallacy of equivocation. You are equivocation Non biological entities with biological ones. The reason biological entities need no design is because they are chemical systems of reproduction which allows for the process of evolution. And believe me, I have studied evolution and system dynamics for years. The solution is vastly more elegant than design is. It is actually a much better solution to biological engines. If you too had studied proteomics, proteonomics, genomics, Hox flow, evo-devo and biomolecular kinetics, you would know this as well as I.
Being that you do not, here is some material by me to get you started:
Proteomics and It's Applications For Evolutionary Mechanisms- Indisputable Proof of Evolution and Common Descent
Also, you are making the verificationist fallacy. You are not looking at elements which debunk your view (hence you are not within empirical rights to hold them). The concept of a designed has many problems as well. In fact, as I showed below, it is a reductio ad absurdum:
On the Problem of Interaction and the Concluding Piece of the Series: The Absurdity of an Immaterial Mind
What is so difficult to understand about the ad ignoratium fallacy you are commiting here?? It is really the easiest fucking thing in the world to grasp!
Furthermore, if you wish to view it from the strong atheist perspective, I do not believe in God because the whole concept is an inherent reductio ad absurdum. Please read the above piece to find out why.
If you do not want to read the above piece, then stop asserting this nonsense of us having "faith" if you really are not bothered to read rebuttals.
This is essentially what you have thus far done the whole thread, which is incredibly dishonest.
You make a pathetic point
It gets refuted
You ignore it
You continue to make said pathetic point
Someone forces you to acknowledge that you have been refuted
You whine
How honest, sir!
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Actually I think a better term for the person who creates a laptop is a manipulator. A laptop is created through the manipulation of pre-existing matter/energy. The smallest parts of a laptop are not created by the person who designed it. Those already existed, he/she just moved them into the proper place.
DeludedGod has answer this. I hope you have a understand what he is talking about. (if you don't ask him questions)
Yes you do say it, but that doesn't make it true. You are saying you don't know how this thing can exist without a creator, therefore you say this being (that doesn't need a creator) created the Matter/energy.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
To all those who have refuted the OP (who by the name he's taken is proud to be able to mooch off his invisible friend)
Remember - he thinks the penguin was intelligently designed - bet he digs the platypus too.
"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
Allow me to take a different approach here. With all due respect to deludedgod, whose refutation is the work of a thorough professional with more scientific knowledge in his pinky than you or I have in our entire bodies, I fear that you probably didn't bother to read the essays he linked to, or, if you did, there's not a chance you understood them. How do I know this? Because I have a hard time understanding them, and based on your arguments in this thread, I'm way the hell smarter than you. Fortunately, your arguments are at an elementary level at best, so even I, meek marketing professional that I am, can see how mind-numbingly flawed they are, and refute them into oblivion. Not that you'll do anything but repeat yourself (again) and make theists in general look like the ignorant, arrogant goofs that many of them are. Enjoy reading this from whatever crippled table you keep referencing, however, I can only picture a place where they put corks on the forks and knives, and serve everything on Chinet.
For the 400th time, no proof is necessary for someone NOT making a positive assertion. Otherwise, any statement, no matter how farfetched, would need to be taken seriously because nobody could possibly prove that it was untrue. I have a summer home on an astral body orbiting Alpha Centauri, and that's where Jimmy Hoffa is right now. Prove that I don't. Get it yet? If not, then at very least, stop posting, you're making yourself look like an idiot.
It's not about slapping labels on things ad nauseaum, it's about a succinct rebuttal to your repetitve, incorrect arguments. Your arguments aren't worth any more time than that, although deludedgod was kind enough to spend much more time with you than he should have. I almost think he may have hypergraphia.
You, good man, haven't the slightest clue as to the definition of reason.
Not one contemporaneous account of this healing exists. Not one. Some historians of the time spent pages and pages on many things mundane and trivial, but a miracle worker didn't warrant one paragraph. You wouldn't know reason if it sat on your face.
Something's ridiculous alright, and it's your downright nauseating use of the watchmaker argument, that has been debunked over and over again, and is common knowledge to anyone that was truly interested in the issue. How is that possible? Because said people went off and read up on the topic, and didn't sit at their cripple table, slurping down the drivel fed to them by control freaks with an agenda, grinning like an idiot and asking for seconds.
You should be in a museum's anthropology exhibit, an an example of a moronic subset of homo sapien that went extinct around 2100 A.D. A refutation of the evolution "argument," using a comparison of something inanimate with something alive is so devoid of A) rational thought, and B) an intelligence level higher than peat moss, that it doesn't warrant any further reponse. No, I'm not running from your argument, I'm just too pissed off at your ignorance to bother with spelling it out for you. I might as well explain it to my dog.
Dismiss it? I'd hardly call years of observation by trained ornithologists dismissing anything. And that's where you got your information from, jackass, from scientists spending years uncovering the reasons for countless natural phenomena such as the flying formations of migrating geese. If we listened to people like you, drooling imbeciles would stare into the sky, claim a flying 'V' is the mark of satan, then watch the birds fly off into the horizon, mouths agape at the mystical supernatural powers the birds must possess in order to fly on their own.
I could post all kinds of links by scientists and philosophers that have driven this argument into obsolescence, but I won't. Instead, I choose to quote from Twisted Sister, considering the "intelligent and knowledgable" angle hasn't worked on you:
Your life is trite and jaded
Boring and confiscated
If that's your best, your best won't do
Your position has been defeated.
This may the most ironic statement I've ever read. The only ignorant person here, sir, is you.
Oh, just shut up already.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."