|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 07:44:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W. |
You're making analogies with people leaping to their deaths, yet I'm the one being obtuse? |
Your the one going off on a suicide tangent when the word was never used or implied. So yes, your being obtuse. And you know it.
No, it was obviously because you saw "basking in glory" when what was happening wasn't nearly so dramatic. |
Crowing, basking in glory, call it whatever you wish.
And then you asked me how it was relevant. It isn't, you knew it wasn't, but you asked again anyway. |
Because in spite of the others trying to steer you straight you continued to praise your world religion survey #1 blue ribbon as if this has some sort of relevance on anything, other then puffing up your pride.
I didn't say I would crow about atheists being number 1, I said I would crow about the theists' sucky scores. |
Dude, your title for this thread is "Atheists and agnostics are #1" so come on, be real here.
Besides, that doesn't make the results relevant to "the God vs. no god debate," so again: why did you ask what it's relevance is? |
I am trying to get you to say what we all already know. The only relevance this has is the atheist gets to add a blue ribbon to his trophy collection as being #1 in the worlds religions survey. I then point out/remind that winning a survey on world religions, in light of the search for the origins of the universe, amounts to winning a grand canyon long jump contest. In other words, at the end of the day, your blue ribbon and $0.50 might get you a fresh cup of coffee. I do this to bring some perspective to your Atheists are #1 party and parade. Your one track mind then fixates on suicide at this point for some reason and goes off on a tangent.
"The grand scheme of things," as regards this particular survey, is /not/ and has /never been/, "the God vs. no god debate" or anything like "truth in origins." You're trying to mix and orange in with the apples because then you can dismiss the apples as not amounting to "a hill of beans." The proper context is, instead, the public perception of atheism. |
Well right now the public perception of atheism is that they enjoy accumulating meaningless #1 ribbons for random surveys on the world's different religions. Again, big deal.
What you're doing with your repeatedly bringing up "the God vs. no god debate" and poo-pooing the survey results is like pointing out to people that the winner of a soap-box derby could never win a Grand Prix race. |
No, that is not at all what I am saying. That is not what kill was saying or any of the others either. What I was saying was that one who has just won a soap-box derby race need not jump up and down and beat on his chest as if he just won the the Japanese F1 GP race. Since here is where you get confused with your random tangents on suicide let me try and explain it for you one more time, using your analogy. You are at the bottom of the hill, out of your car and in the face of the 12 year old in the lane next to you who you just beat in the soap-box derby race and your shouting "Atheists are #1! Atheists are #1!" A few of us are just trying to calm you down and bring some perspective to the victory by reminding you that this is not the Japanese F1 GP here, it's a soap-box derby race so chill out dude.
Sure, that's why you've said it doesn't amount to a hill of beans or that in the "grand scheme of things" it is worthless. |
But it is worthless.
It /is/ a big deal, but not in the context you're trying to cram it into. Nobody ever said it was a big deal in some other context, but you keep bringing up that other context as if it's relevant. Do you really not have a relevant argument, and are just doing this to insult me? |
I, like the others, were just trying to tell you to chill out. You did not just win the Japan F1 GP here, buddy.
I see no evidence that /anything/ is "eternal," so no. Of course, to claim that because everything had a start, everything was created /by God/ |
You added God. But the fact is anything that had a point in time when it began to exist, then by definition, is a created object. So it is not out of line at all to refer to the universe as the creation, it was created. Now where you and I differ is the first cause for that creation. You lean towards a fully natural explanation for the first cause of creation while I lean towards a supernatural first cause for creation.
you'll have to posit that God creates every photon that emits from every lightbulb, and thus that there are no "natural" processes at all, which would demolish free will. Are you a Calvinist? |
The only thing I ever said was that you do not know that there is no god while I do not know that there is a God. That is a true statement of which you just agreed. From there everyone went on different tangents about post modernism, overall knowledge of mirrors etc... etc...
You're answering the wrong questions on their behalf. Hawking didn't say that he knows there is no god, for example. |
Well then I apologize to Hawking. I got the impression from kil that he did.
I see that you are unwilling to follow the argumentative chain down to it's logical conclusion in solipsism. Unfortunately for your argument about knowledge, solipsism is where it necessarily /begins/. Until you figure out how to escape solipsism using something other than faith, you won't be discussing the same things that I am. |
The only thing I ever said was that you do not know that there is no god while I do not know that there is a God. That is a true statement of which you just agreed. From there everyone went on different tangents about post modernism, overall knowledge of mirrors etc... etc...
Exactly. If you want to prove to me that what I see when looking in a mirror has a creator, you'll first have to prove to me that mirrors exist. |
Sure I can do that easy. Let's just meet up somewhere halfway between you and I. I will then hit you over the head with my mirror as hard I can and then you can tell me if you think the mirror exists or not. Better yet let me break the mirror and then slice you with it like hot butter. Then in a pile of your own blood you can tell us if your convinced on the existence of mirrors yet. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
Edited by - Bill scott on 10/06/2010 08:30:08 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 07:50:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse |
Dave isn't obtuse by a long shot compared to you. |
He is being obtuse on purpose.
The others in this thread.
In the Grand Scheme of things, atheists are laughing at theists for being delusional. |
Over what?
As far as the debate of God vs. No God: the debate was over long ago, |
Really? What was the conclusion and how was it confirmed?
and the theists are just in a state of denial. |
Maybe a state of shock. I was not aware the God vs. no god debate had empirically been settled. What was the conclusion? How was that conclusion arrived at?
I think you're confusing things up here. Care to rephrase? |
No, I don't. Dave, Hawking, Kill and yourself all know for a fact that you do not know that there is no god. At least you should know this because the truth is that you don't know.
Not in exactly those words, you didn't. But what you said, did imply just that. |
That is not true at all. The only thing I said was that as a theist I could not know that there was a God just as any atheist cannot know that there is no god, and Dave agreed. I then even offered to hit Dave over his head with my mirror to prove that mirrors actual do existence.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 09:04:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse |
Dave isn't obtuse by a long shot compared to you. |
He is being obtuse on purpose. |
So are you, on purpose, because the alternative would be that you are so fucking dumb as to be obtuse without being aware of it, and I don't want to believe that of you. That's why I'm assuming that you're being obtuse on purpose. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The others in this thread. | Now you're lying. Kil even explained to you that his comment was not made for that purpose. Neither were mine.
In the Grand Scheme of things, atheists are laughing at theists for being delusional. |
Over what? | The existence of God and Jesus, and the "truthiness" of the Bible.
As far as the debate of God vs. No God: the debate was over long ago, | Really? What was the conclusion and how was it confirmed? | The conclusion was there exist no evidence of God's presense, and so the concept of God is irrelevant to the nature of Reality. It's confirmed by the no-show everytime someone tries to present a case for the existence of God.
and the theists are just in a state of denial. |
Maybe a state of shock. | If denial and shock exhibit many of the same symptoms, you may be right. Theists may very well be in a state of shock, because they know deep, deep inside that there is no God. Perhaps that's why so many of them have to keep affirming for themselves that "Jesus Lives. He Really Does!" just to keep the delusion alive. I know it's so, because I was once one of the delusional.
I was not aware the God vs. no god debate had empirically been settled. What was the conclusion? How was that conclusion arrived at? | Already answered above. Also, I do recall reading a headline: "God found dead in an alley, next to a blood-splattered razor belonging to Mr. Occam."
Dave, Hawking, Kill and yourself all know for a fact that you do not know that there is no god. | I don't think anyone has disputed that. Hawking has come to the conclusion that God is not necessary for the existence of the Universe, but that it may be self-sufficient by natural causes. Since he is The Authority when it comes to Big Bang science, deferring to his expert opinion is logically sound for a skeptic or philosophical naturalist. Of course, this does not deny the existence of God. It merely renders the concept of God meaningless.
Have a look at these two assertions: 1) Dave does not know that there is no god. 2) Bill does not know that there is a God.
Which of these assertions contains one more entity than the other?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..." Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq: Send them unarmed civilians for target practice.. Collateralmurder. |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 10:33:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott No, I don't. Dave, Hawking, Kill and yourself all know for a fact that you do not know that there is no god. At least you should know this because the truth is that you don't know. |
It is only your belief that this is the truth, remember?
OK so now you have a survey that shows a few random atheists know more about Judaism then some Catholic people. etc... Big fricking deal. And how does this have any relevance on the God vs. no god debate? |
How are any of your rantings in this thread relevant to the democracy vs. communism debate?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 10:33:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse |
So are you, on purpose, because the alternative would be that you are so fucking dumb as to be obtuse without being aware of it, and I don't want to believe that of you. That's why I'm assuming that you're being obtuse on purpose. Correct me if I'm wrong. |
Your wrong. Dave knows this has nothing at all to do with suicide and that it was never intended to.
Now you're lying. Kil even explained to you that his comment was not made for that purpose. Neither were mine. |
Look, I am just joining the crowd and pointing out to Dave that he just won Bakersfield soap-box derby here and not the Japanese F1 GP. Stop being so obtuse yourself.
The existence of God and Jesus, and the "truthiness" of the Bible. |
OK now you are just going off on tangents here. And what about Muslim or Mormon creationists and the Bible?
The conclusion was there exist no evidence of God's presense, |
But that is just your belief and nothing more. The truth is that there is plenty of evidence for a supernatural creator, you just cannot see it when your eyes are shut.
and so the concept of God is irrelevant to the nature of Reality | .
More of your simple beliefs and opinions, which are irrelevant anyway to the nature of reality.
It's confirmed by the no-show everytime someone tries to present a case for the existence of God. |
Beliefs and opinions, nothing more.
If denial and shock exhibit many of the same symptoms, you may be right. Theists may very well be in a state of shock, because they know deep, deep inside that there is no God. |
But we (theists) do not know this and neither do you (atheists) know it. I thought you understood this all but now you act as if you do not? There is no way for me or Hawking, whether on the surface or deep deep inside to know that there is no God. No mater how bad you want us to it just ain't so and that is reality my fine Swedish friend.
Perhaps that's why so many of them have to keep affirming for themselves that "Jesus Lives. He Really Does!" just to keep the delusion alive. |
Your going off on tangents again.
I know it's so, because I was once one of the delusional. |
So now we are just supposed to accept your belief based on your anecdotal and justso story? I know plenty of theists who were once atheists, what does this prove?
No you did not. You just gave me your opinion and beliefs.
Also, I do recall reading a headline: "God found dead in an alley, next to a blood-splattered razor belonging to Mr. Occam." |
So what?
I don't think anyone has disputed that. Hawking has come to the conclusion that God is not necessary for the existence of the Universe, but that it may be self-sufficient by natural causes. |
Yeah? Well those beliefs and two quarters will get you a fresh cup of coffee in the realm of reality.
Since he is The Authority when it comes to Big Bang science, deferring to his expert opinion is logically sound for a skeptic or philosophical naturalist. |
It is simply your opinion and your belief that he is the authority on BB science. Hawking is just another in a long list to attempt long jumping the Grand Canyon. Sure, maybe he did jump the furthest, but in terms of knowing all there is to know in the cosmos or being "The Authority" Hawking falls infinity short therefore, he is no "Authority" but rather just another with his beliefs and opinions.
Of course, this does not deny the existence of God. It merely renders the concept of God meaningless. |
Maybe if you accept his personal beliefs and opinions to begin with. This does not bare out in reality, however. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 10:48:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks |
No, I don't. Dave, Hawking, Kill and yourself all know for a fact that you do not know that there is no god. At least you should know this because the truth is that you don't know. |
It is only your belief that this is the truth, remember? |
Fine, have it your way. It is just Dave's, Hawking's, Kil's and my belief that we do not know all that there is to know in the cosmos and beyond and so therefore we have no real knowledge that there is no God. Now do me a favor and join Dave in meeting up with me so I can pound you over the head as well with my mirror in order to prove to you that mirrors do exist.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 11:43:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Hawks |
No, I don't. Dave, Hawking, Kill and yourself all know for a fact that you do not know that there is no god. At least you should know this because the truth is that you don't know. |
It is only your belief that this is the truth, remember? |
Fine, have it your way. It is just Dave's, Hawking's, Kil's and my belief that we do not know all that there is to know in the cosmos and beyond and so therefore we have no real knowledge that there is no God. Now do me a favor and join Dave in meeting up with me so I can pound you over the head as well with my mirror in order to prove to you that mirrors do exist.
|
Bolding mine
I personally do not buy into this crap. Of course no one can know all there is to know. That does not mean that the God Hypothesis should be given an equal amount of respect as real scientific studies. The God Hypothesis should be way way down at the bottom of the list of possibilities. For this reason I will not give an inch of room to consider it because then the theists think they won something. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 11:56:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
The conclusion was there exist no evidence of God's presense, |
But that is just your belief and nothing more. The truth is that there is plenty of evidence for a supernatural creator, you just cannot see it when your eyes are shut.
| Since evidence should be independently observable/experimentally repeatable by what mechanism, not just a firm belief, do we measure this supernatural being or its effects on the world. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 13:06:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock |
Noted.
I personally do not buy into this crap. |
Whether you buy into this or not is irrelevant as to whether it is true.
Of course no one can know all there is to know. |
That is what I have been saying all along so I am glad that you agree.
That does not mean that the God Hypothesis should be given an equal amount of respect |
I would agree. It's my belief that it should given a greater amount of respect then the no-God-did-it hypothesis.
as real scientific studies. |
What real scientific studies?
The God Hypothesis should be way way down at the bottom of the list of possibilities. |
That's simply your opinion.
For this reason I will not give an inch of room to consider it because then the theists think they won something. |
And here you have clearly demonstrated your true motivations on this forum. It's not a search for truth but rather to dogmatically defend your beliefs against anyone who dares to challenge them and calls them beliefs. You see in the previous sentence you just said that God was on the list of possibilities, albeit he was at the bottom of the list. Immediately after acknowledging that God was a possibility you then acknowledge that you refuse to even give God any consideration at all in favor of your dogmatic defenses of your beliefs. This is not the scientific method. In one hand you acknowledge that God must be considered and in the other hand you say that even though you just said God must be considered you then turn around and out of the other cheek you say you are going to refuse to even consider him. And what reason do you give for not considering God, even though out of the other check you just acknowledged that you must consider God? Because your ideology refuses you to allow yourself to admit the truth because your afraid this may give the theists reason to think they have won something?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Dude, this is a search for truth here and not some monopoly game that you want to beat your friends at. But obviously you are more interested in winning some game then in truth. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 13:42:09 [Permalink]
|
And here you have clearly demonstrated your true motivations on this forum. It's not a search for truth but rather to dogmatically defend your beliefs against anyone who dares to challenge them and calls them beliefs. | No, that is not my motivation at all. I'm here for the discount coupons to the Creation Museum. You see in the previous sentence you just said that God was on the list of possibilities, albeit he was at the bottom of the list. Immediately after acknowledging that God was a possibility you then acknowledge that you refuse to even give God any consideration at all in favor of your dogmatic defenses of your beliefs. |
Sure, God is on the list...right after " The whole universe is just a molecule on a hair at the end of a dogs tail" or any other nonsense that can be thought of. Can I prove that we are not at the end of a dogs tail? Nope. Am I going to waste any kind of time searching for evidence for such nonsense? Nope. Am I going to give respect to anyone with any kind of whacked out idea? Nope. This is not the scientific method. In one hand you acknowledge that God must be considered and in the other hand you say that even though you just said God must be considered you then turn around and out of the other cheek you say you are going to refuse to even consider him. | Exactly how much time and effort do you think should be spent chasing a nonsensical argument? Is dismissing nonsense somehow against the scuientific method? And what reason do you give for not considering God, even though out of the other check you just acknowledged that you must consider God? Because your ideology refuses you to allow yourself to admit the truth because your afraid this may give the theists reason to think they have won something?!?!?!?!?!?!?! |
yer God Damn right that why I won't give an inch. Truth? What truth are you referring to? Are you talking "truth" as in the way Christians have hijacked the word or are you referring the real meaning which is what reality would consist of? Dude, this is a search for truth here and not some monopoly game that you want to beat your friends at. But obviously you are more interested in winning some game then in truth. |
FYI Dude is another poster here on the forum. I am Ebone.
Fixed tags
Kil |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
Edited by - Ebone4rock on 10/06/2010 13:47:39 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 13:47:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
You're making analogies with people leaping to their deaths, yet I'm the one being obtuse? | Your the one going off on a suicide tangent when the word was never used or implied. | You came up with an analogy in which people voluntarily leap to their deaths, and that doesn't imply suicide? Talk about obtuse.No, it was obviously because you saw "basking in glory" when what was happening wasn't nearly so dramatic. | Crowing, basking in glory, call it whatever you wish. | What I call it isn't important. You think the amount of celebration I'm doing is wildly inappropriate, but I'm not doing as much as you think I'm doing.Because in spite of the others trying to steer you straight you continued to praise your world religion survey #1 blue ribbon as if this has some sort of relevance on anything, other then puffing up your pride. | But it does have relevance to something, and that something has nothing to do with pride. I notice that you just skipped over what that something is when I brought it up.I didn't say I would crow about atheists being number 1, I said I would crow about the theists' sucky scores. | Dude, your title for this thread is "Atheists and agnostics are #1" so come on, be real here. | The title is a factual statement. You're the one reading exclamation points after it which don't exist.Besides, that doesn't make the results relevant to "the God vs. no god debate," so again: why did you ask what it's relevance is? | I am trying to get you to say what we all already know. The only relevance this has is the atheist gets to add a blue ribbon to his trophy collection as being #1 in the worlds religions survey. | And the last time I said that, you tried to drag "the God vs. no god debate" into it as if it had some sort of relevance.I then point out/remind that winning a survey on world religions, in light of the search for the origins of the universe, amounts to winning a grand canyon long jump contest. | But "in light of the search for the origins of the universe," you commenting here doesn't amount to even a tiny hill of beans, but you do it anyway. The survey results are completely irrelevant to "the search for the origins of the universe." It's not that the results are worthless or unimportant, it's just that they have no bearing whatsoever on the subject you keep trying to bring up to show that the survey results are worthless. The two are completely orthogonal.In other words, at the end of the day, your blue ribbon and $0.50 might get you a fresh cup of coffee. | You think that because you're defining "the end of the day" in a way which is completely inappropriate. After all, at the end of the day, your beliefs about God don't matter one bit: you won't be human or have any free will after you die.I do this to bring some perspective to your Atheists are #1 party and parade. | But trying to compare the survey results to some random question of "origins" doesn't offer any perspective at all.Your one track mind then fixates on suicide at this point for some reason... | You're the one who offered suicide leaps as an analogy....and goes off on a tangent. | I've never neglected the subject at hand to discuss your bad analogies.Well right now the public perception of atheism is that they enjoy accumulating meaningless #1 ribbons for random surveys on the world's different religions. Again, big deal. | Yes, I understand that you don't understand the point, and are willing to dismiss the results in your ignorance. What you're doing with your repeatedly bringing up "the God vs. no god debate" and poo-pooing the survey results is like pointing out to people that the winner of a soap-box derby could never win a Grand Prix race. | No, that is not at all what I am saying. | That's exactly what you're saying, don't play coy. Here, let's rewrite what you said, above:The only relevance this has is the kid gets to add a blue ribbon to his trophy collection as being #1 in the soapbox derby. I then point out/remind that winning a soapbox derby, in light of the Japan F1 GP, amounts to winning a grand canyon long jump contest. In other words, at the end of the day, your blue ribbon and $0.50 might get you a fresh cup of coffee. I do this to bring some perspective to your soapbox derby #1 party and parade. See? That's precisely what you've been saying.That is not what kill was saying or any of the others either. | No, it's what you have been saying.What I was saying was that one who has just won a soap-box derby race need not jump up and down and beat on his chest as if he just won the the Japanese F1 GP race. | No, a person who wins a soapbox derby race gets to jump up and down and beat of his/her chest like they've just won a soapbox derby. What do you have against soapbox, Bill? Those kids work hard on those cars, and it's a good bonding exercise for them and their parents. Why do you want to knock 'em down?Since here is where you get confused with your random tangents on suicide... | You want to call your own analogy "random" I guess that's your prerogative....let me try and explain it for you one more time, using your analogy. You are at the bottom of the hill, out of your car and in the face of the 12 year old in the lane next to you who you just beat in the soap-box derby race and your shouting "Atheists are #1! Atheists are #1!" | Why would I do that? Am I racing a soapbox derby car on behalf of atheists for some reason? Is this a charity event, perhaps?A few of us are just trying to calm you down and bring some perspective to the victory by reminding you that this is not the Japanese F1 GP here, it's a soap-box derby race so chill out dude. | Wow, way to miss the point. You'd suck the fun out of winning a big stuffed animal at a carnival, wouldn't you?Sure, that's why you've said it doesn't amount to a hill of beans or that in the "grand scheme of things" it is worthless. | But it is worthless. | Well, thanks for turning yourself around on your "I didn't say it wasn't important" thing.I, like the others, were just trying to tell you to chill out. | The word "just" in there makes the whole statement utter nonsense.You did not just win the Japan F1 GP here, buddy. | Never claimed I did, pal.You added God. But the fact is anything that had a point in time when it began to exist, then by definition, is a created object. | So what creates the photons leaving a lightbulb?So it is not out of line at all to refer to the universe as the creation, it was created. Now where you and I differ is the first cause for that creation. You lean towards a fully natural explanation for the first cause of creation while I lean towards a supernatural first cause for creation. | No, you lean towards an anthropomorphized deity as first cause, for which we have zero evidence, while I lean towards, "I don't know."
Here's the problem, Bill: all the evidence we have suggests that every fundamental particle that is "created" at this point in time gets created without any supernatural help at all. Plants and animals seem to reproduce without any divine help at all. Human-created items number a tremendously small fraction of all the naturally created items around us. But even if there were orders of magnitude more of them, going from things being naturally created or created by humans to there being a supernatural "first cause" creator is a logical and evidenciary leap that is in no sense justifiable.
It's like the most-popular argument for "Intelligent Design," wherein we see things that we know to be designed all had a designer, therefore since life looked designed, it must have has a designer, too. But all the designed things that we're aware of were designed by humans, so the argument must be that humans designed all life on the planet. Concluding that a deity did the designing is unsupported by either evidence or logic.The only thing I ever said was that you do not know that there is no god while I do not know that there is a God. That is a true statement of which you just agreed. | And you're unwilling to follow the logical chain to its correct conclusion, as evidenced by your failure to address solipsism at all in this reply.From there everyone went on different tangents about post modernism, overall knowledge of mirrors etc... etc... | You brought up the mirrors, Bill.Sure I can do that easy. Let's just meet up somewhere halfway between you and I. I will then hit you over the head with my mirror as hard I can and then you can tell me if you think the mirror exists or not. Better yet let me break the mirror and then slice you with it like hot butter. Then in a pile of your own blood you can tell us if your convinced on the existence of mirrors yet. | Yeah, you're totally ignorant of the problem of solipsism. I don't share your faith, Bill. When I bleed out, I still won't be convinced that mirrors exist, 'cause I'll be dead. Maybe. Hell, it may not have even been "my" "body" that you "assaulted." How could you possibly know if I exist? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 14:09:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Your wrong. Dave knows this has nothing at all to do with suicide and that it was never intended to. | So when you said......akin to a contest between a theist and an atheist to long jump over the Grand Canyon. Sure one may jump 15 ft before falling like a rock to the bottom and the other may only make it out there 10 feet before dropping, but can the one who jumped 15 feet really beat on his chest and claim victory? ...you had no intention of bringing up the subject of people voluntarily leaping to their deaths?It is simply your opinion and your belief that he is the authority on BB science. Hawking is just another in a long list to attempt long jumping the Grand Canyon. Sure, maybe he did jump the furthest, but in terms of knowing all there is to know in the cosmos or being "The Authority" Hawking falls infinity short therefore, he is no "Authority" but rather just another with his beliefs and opinions. | Now apply that argument to the authors of the Bible. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 17:38:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott Now do me a favor and join Dave in meeting up with me so I can pound you over the head as well with my mirror in order to prove to you that mirrors do exist. |
I think that you should have a good look into that mirror. I'm not denying that mirrors exist. I would call it a fact. You would call it a belief. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 12:09:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock For this reason I will not give an inch of room to consider it because then the theists think they won something.
| You mean, somthing like a soap-box derby?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..." Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq: Send them unarmed civilians for target practice.. Collateralmurder. |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 13:42:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
That's why I'm assuming that you're being obtuse on purpose. Correct me if I'm wrong. | Your wrong. |
Thank you for sorting that out.
The existence of God and Jesus, and the "truthiness" of the Bible. |
OK now you are just going off on tangents here. And what about Muslim or Mormon creationists and the Bible? | Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Mormon share a common ancestry (and history), so they are also delusional.
The conclusion was there exist no evidence of God's presense, |
But that is just your belief and nothing more. The truth is that there is plenty of evidence for a supernatural creator, | But that is just your belief and nothing more.
you just cannot see it when your eyes are shut. | But it's just your belief that my eyes are shut.
and so the concept of God is irrelevant to the nature of Reality | .
More of your simple beliefs and opinions, | No it's practical experience. I tried living as if God was irrelevant. And gues what? It didn't matter at all. (Except I became a much happier man)
which are irrelevant anyway to the nature of reality. |
But that is just your belief and nothing more.
It's confirmed by the no-show everytime someone tries to present a case for the existence of God. |
Beliefs and opinions, nothing more. | But that is just your belief and nothing more.
If denial and shock exhibit many of the same symptoms, you may be right. Theists may very well be in a state of shock, because they know deep, deep inside that there is no God. | But we (theists) do not know this and neither do you (atheists) know it. | But that is just your belief and nothing more.
I thought you understood this all but now you act as if you do not? | Ah, but I do understand. More than you think. I'm just trying to raise to your level of obtuseness.
There is no way for me or Hawking, whether on the surface or deep deep inside to know that there is no God. | Nor that there could possibly be one either. And there lies a dilemma that some part of your mind can't face: you're bring one extra entity into the question, which is irrelevant since we don't know the truth behind the veil. (We possibly never will, but that's another thread.)
Perhaps that's why so many of them have to keep affirming for themselves that "Jesus Lives. He Really Does!" just to keep the delusion alive. |
Your going off on tangents again. | That's just your opinion. I think it provides some much needed psychological perspective to your kind's point of view.
I know plenty of theists who were once atheists, what does this prove? | It proves that atheists aren't immune from becoming delusional.
Also, I do recall reading a headline: "God found dead in an alley, next to a blood-splattered razor belonging to Mr. Occam." |
So what? | I'm sorry you didn't get the joke. Maybe you need a skeptical mindset to find it funny. I hope other readers at least found it funny, or at least got the point, even if the joke wasn't all that funny. I wasn't counting on getting a LOL from you, I was just hoping.
I don't think anyone has disputed that. Hawking has come to the conclusion that God is not necessary for the existence of the Universe, but that it may be self-sufficient by natural causes. | Yeah? Well those beliefs and two quarters will get you a fresh cup of coffee in the realm of reality. | Wow, in one fell swoop you managed to throw science on the garbage heap. No wonder people think you're a post-modernist. Or delusional.
Since he is The Authority when it comes to Big Bang science, deferring to his expert opinion is logically sound for a skeptic or philosophical naturalist. |
It is simply your opinion and your belief that he is the authority on BB science. | No, it's not merely my opinion and my belief. It's a lot of scientists that regards him as The Authority. His work wouldn't be considered science if he didn't have a lot of evidence as a foundation to his work.
Hawking is just another in a long list to attempt long jumping the Grand Canyon. | Hey stoopid, he's in a wheel-chair. He couldn't even crawl over the edge of Grand Canyon, even if his life depended on it... Just lay off that stupid analogy, already. PLEASE!
Sure, maybe he did jump the furthest, but in terms of knowing all there is to know in the cosmos or being "The Authority" Hawking falls infinity short therefore, he is no "Authority" but rather just another with his beliefs and opinions. | But that is just your belief and nothing more. Also, since you don't know what there is to know, you wouldn't know where the boundary is, so you could not know if his knowledge were truly infinitely small in comparison. He could, for all we know, know 10% of all there is to know about BB. Perhaps even 15%. You don't know, and I don't know. So your claiming his knowledge falls infinitely short is fucking presumptuous.
Of course, this does not deny the existence of God. It merely renders the concept of God meaningless. |
Maybe if you accept his personal beliefs and opinions to begin with. This does not bare out in reality, however.
| But that is just your belief and nothing more.
Bill scott: Ebone4rock: For this reason I will not give an inch of room to consider it because then the theists think they won something. |
And here you have clearly demonstrated your true motivations on this forum. It's not a search for truth but rather to dogmatically defend your beliefs against anyone who dares to challenge them and calls them beliefs. | Whoa! That just blew my irony meter.
Bill scott:
That does not mean that the God Hypothesis should be given an equal amount of respect |
I would agree. It's my belief that it should given a greater amount of respect then the no-God-did-it hypothesis. | But that is just your belief and nothing more. Edited to add: The lack of scientific evidence supporting your God hypothesis suggest the opposite, Bill.
This is not the scientific method. | Given your track record in knowing things related to science, your beliefs and opinions counts for jack shit. Didn't you read the memo?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..." Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq: Send them unarmed civilians for target practice.. Collateralmurder. |
Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/07/2010 13:46:38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|