[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< I just ordered Darwin’s Black box by Michael Behe. [/quote]I just ordered pork rinds n salsa.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< I just ordered Darwin’s Black box by Michael Behe. [/quote]I just ordered pork rinds n salsa.
[/quote]
Are you a muslim?
This cannot possibly be a serious question, but I do not want to derail brother Joab’s thread.
I wanted to caption this “I have no idea whats going on” but oh well.
Raj how did you get interested in that book? You interested in the intelligent design?
Trib Ive never heard of someone eating salsa with pork rinds, is that a low carb way of eating them lol?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Bullshit, of the lowest grade.
Your argument for god’s existence is based on your faith, which is based on nothing more than feelings. You have no quantifiable proof of any god. Your faith is crap, as all faith is, since it needs no proof of anything in an effort to believe in anything. Dawkins is spot on when he rails against the concept of faith as dangerous. It teaches us to believe in what’s not real, and THAT, is a problem for the human race.
[/quote]
If it were based on faith, you could refute it, it’s not it’s based on pure logic. If you can refute it, I will personally send you a cookie. I will present the argument in a link, because I written is so many times, I can’t do it any more…
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
This is the cosmological argument of which you are unfamiliar. All your rantings and calling it bullshit, doesn’t make it so. It just means you can’t refute it or beat it.
The argument is really a form of argument, as this article explains. It’s a good overview of the argument without getting to technical.
The Kalam argument I already agree is garbage, the argument from contingency (3.1) is what I am claiming and defending. It’s not a perfect form of the argument, but it’s good enough.
By the time your done, you should be able to see why I said the I can make a better argument for God than you can for yourself. Only your ego can prevent this epiphany. [/quote]
Ahh, but I don’t have to refute it, it’s already been refuted by persons smarter than you or I. Your argument from contingency relies entirely on your god being magically immune from this infinite regression. Guess what that takes?..a leap of faith. Your argument from contingency requires the denial of true contingency…which is “no cause”.
Dawkins addresses this faulty argument (and other faulty arguments for the existence of a god) well in chapter three of his book “The God Delusion”. You should read it; If needed, I could send you my copy.
[quote]Pat wrote:
There’s an argument on the table, I put it out there, I understand burden of proof. If all you can come up with is this alien garbage, are you really sure about your atheism? Sounds like a weak basis to me.[/quote]
I was using a ridiculous premise, to highlight the ridiculousness of your premise. You have no proof of any god, not even yours.
[quote]Pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Pat wrote:
At least most Christian can claim some sort of personal interaction with the almighty, which is more compelling then ‘prove I am not an alien’. Hell, I can’t prove your not a figment of my imagination.
Based on this I can say you have a lot of faith in your atheism…[/quote]
There are many psychologically disturbed people who can claim to have personal interactions with all sorts of imaginary friends. Your arguments are laughable, and based entirely on blind faith in some creator that NOBODY has any proof of. You believe because you’ve chosen to disregard the fact that there’s zero proof or evidence to support your belief. I choose to not believe based on the fact that there’s no evidence AT ALL to support any of the gods that have been worshiped throughout history, not even the christian god.
You once again show that you do not understand atheism OR faith.
[/quote]
Oh cry me a river, you’re whining about how mean God is in the OT is hardly compelling. Refute the argument, I don’t need scripture to prove God exist.[/quote]
See above. Apparently you don’t need logic either, all you need is a wee bit of faith, and faulty deductive reasoning.
Getting back to Dawkins book, he makes another great reference to the fact that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. He goes on to quote Karen Owens:
Can omniscient god, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change his future mind?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Right, the fact that your god was only putting him to the test and maybe “fooling around a bit”, that makes the story loving.
Still a very, very, very fucked up story. You have to do a whole lot of equivocation to make that anything but fucking evil. Although, I’m sure you’re up to the task.
[/quote]
It may have been a little mean, but it was not a story of God asking Abraham commit child sacrifice. Which is what you claim and I refuted.
Whoptie do. God has not been detected by scientific measures? I am underwhelmed. Is this what these books taught you? Technically, if you want to get nitty gritty, your simply introducing another strawman, but I’ll let it stand in that I love discussing science in the realm of cosmology. Science not detecting God doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. Science tells us many things about the world but the scientific method simply ends the process of discovery once a correlation is established and a conclusion draw. Science, tells us only of the physical world, anything outside of that, is beyond the scope of science. So is would make sense that science cannot discover that which sits outside of it’s realm.
Further, technically speaking, even science itself is a contingent existence. And science is a metaphysical construct.
Since science deals with
Also, as for ‘other gods’, there’s evidence for them, people have made statues and wrote stories and all kinds of stuff to demonstrate their existence. So that’s actually evidence, whether it’s valid evidence or not is another matter, but evidence it is. Whether they exist or I don’t really care. I am only concerned with the Creator of existence, that on which all existence depends.
I cannot prove one way or another that those other gods exist or not, but I can prove they are not the creator the non-contingent being. They just simply don’t make that claim.
That claim is all I am interested in. Proof for it, is existence itself…Didn’t that Hitchens guy cover that?[/quote]
The cool thing about science is, that it’s real whether you believe in it or not.[/quote]
Deductive reasoning is more real that science will ever hope to be. [/quote]
Who made god?
[quote]Pat wrote:
And science has spent most of it’s history being wrong.[/quote]
When science is proven wrong, it is done so by science itself.
Science seeks truth, religion seeks obedience.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Atheism is the only true belief (or lack of belief). Every religion is only a result of being told from others what to think and believe.[/quote]
So tell me is it a proposition one holds to be true or just a physiological state?[/quote]
I don’t expect most atheists to get that religion isn’t the result of brain washing… This idea that the Christian experience is either a collective lie, or a collection of mass stupidity based on group-think is a position I expect them to hold. I mean, it’s a stretch to think that about 2 billion people are delusional and/ or stupid. Because if it’s just that, then it’s unreasonable, and it’s an easy dragon to slay. This I can only imagine is the catalyst to the hubris, arrogance and apparent smugness of the typical atheist. They have been programmed to dismiss us as dumb or crazy. The fact there is no basis in fact, does not seem to stop this misconception.
Again I have to exclude Kamui from this as he has not expressed this view in anyway and does not dismiss the whole Christian experience.[/quote]
Atheists are programed to no such thing. Believers are the ones who are programed from a very young age, just as their parents were, just as heir parents were, just as their parents were. See how that works? [/quote]
No, that’s some deluded bullshit you choose to believe it has no basis in real actual fact. It’s just a hubris on the part of atheists to believe something like that. All kids are a product of their environment to some degree. Being raised a certain way does not mean that all people who don’t think like you are brainwashed robots.[/quote]
If you think that you’re immune to social programming, you’re badly mistaken. Why aren’t you a muslim? A Buddhist? A Hindu?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Atheists choose not to believe based on the fact that there’s no evidence whatsoever to support any god or creator. I think it’s funny to watch believers really struggle with the concept of not believing. It must be such an alien concept to them, that they simply cannot wrap their heads around the fact that atheist have no belief in any sort of god. One does not need faith in order to not believe.
Further, if you don’t know for a fact, beyond the shadow of a doubt there is no God, you are exhibiting faith. The act of being atheist is still an act of faith even though you claim to believe in nothing.[/quote]
Ignoring or disregarding evidence isn’t the same as ‘no evidence’. Can’t do anything about willful ignorance. Second, Whether you like it or not, most of your life revolves around things you aren’t certain of, which makes you operate on faith.
You don’t know if you be alive tomorrow, you don’t know if all the scientific theories you believe in (which is a kind of faith) will fall apart. You believe history based on hearsay, etc. I can go on and on about all the things you don’t know but believe. It’s not a spiritual faith, but it’s a faith nonetheless.[/quote]
You have no evidence for the existence of any gods, just faulty deductive reasoning.
As to your second bit of foolishness, you once again illustrate that you do not understand faith. I believe that I will wake up tomorrow because I’ve been doing it for over 37 years now. It’s a logical belief based on the evidence; I operate on belief, NOT faith. Seriously, is this the best argument you can make?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Many people believing in different forms of the same delusion, does not make it less of a delusion. If it’s marketed well, whatever it is, people WILL buy it. Especially if they’re taught from a very young age that if they don’t buy it, they’ll burn forever in a fiery pit of hell.[/quote]
I didn’t say it did, I said it’s unreasonable to suspect all of the people are either delusional or stupid and that, that is the only catalyst for their faith. If you think that because people are taught Christianity from a young age is the means by which they are programmed just means you don’t really know the very basics of developmental Psychology. People don’t work that way or you would be that way too.
I hope you have more basis for your ideals than anger and vitriol. It seems to me you are an emotional athiest. You’re athiesm is more based on angst than fact. The fact that you claim to have read all these books and you don’t even know the core arguments of the theist seems to support this fact.
Being angry, belittling, and crying bullshit doesn’t prove those core arguments wrong. Hating the bible, a book you never read, doesn’t make God suddenly disappearÃ?¢?Ã?¦.[/quote]
I WAS that way for quite a while, although looking back I was always the little questioner, a fact that quite annoyed the priests and CCD teachers. Fact is, I wasn’t immune to the social/cultural programing either. I spent many years as a full on believer, and many more trying to remain a believer in the face of illogical reasoning. “Have faith” was the standard answer from the priests whenever they were pressed for answers to my questions.I finally faced reality and put down that baggage; I’m a much happier person for it.
That so many people are religious only points to the cultural social programing that I spoke of. It’s not that they’re stupid, it’s just a part of their culture and upbringing, and from a psychology standpoint that’s powerful stuff. Why is it that so many people of the east are not christian? the answer is culture. Why is it that so many people of the west are christian? The answer is…culture.
And what makes you think that I’ve never read the bible? I’ll not claim to be a biblical scholar, but read it I have. One day I intend to read it from cover to cover, I’m told that nothing will make someone an atheist (or confirm their atheism) more than reading it from cover to cover.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I wanted to caption this “I have no idea whats going on” but oh well.
Raj how did you get interested in that book? You interested in the intelligent design?
Trib Ive never heard of someone eating salsa with pork rinds, is that a low carb way of eating them lol?[/quote]
Well, I’ve only read online about creationism/ID, I wanted to read about it for myself.
Edit: It’s the most prominent book in the ID/creationism community no?
I know there’s also a textbook called of Pandas and People, but I don’t want to order a textbook.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
…Studying theology as an atheist is like studying evolution as a creationist. What’s the point if you don’t believe in the core tenent.[/quote]
There is a very good reason.[/quote]
We agree on something?!?!?!?[/quote]
Do you understand my point?[/quote]
Well, I think people should always read books/gain knowledge on opinions that completely oppose their own stance.
That’s why I agree.
Btw Joab I want to point something out to you.
WLC is a major proponent of the Kalam Cosmological argument. On the previous page pat, a fellow theist even says it garbage.
Do you consider it valid?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:<<< it’s just a part of their culture and upbringing, and from a psychology standpoint that’s powerful stuff. >>>[/quote]If you only had any idea how thoroughly this does NOT apply to me. Or a huge percentage of the people in my inner city Detroit church. Some of the strongest most faithful believers I know had the exact opposite upbringing. We have a guy who is a family member of the people who run the biggest mosque in the state which is in Dearborn on Ford road. http://image59.webshots.com/459/5/48/89/2378548890069705609mXPCpI_fs.jpg He was a Muslim apologist until his mid twenties. Had many many converts to Islam.
He preached Easter service at my church last year. The man is filled utterly with the living Christ and gave up EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY on this earth that was important to him and rendered himself unable to return to his home country without being killed. His family has disowned him and has not spoken to him in a couple decades. Clearly his culture and upbringing have made him what he is today.
Oh, Brother Joab pork rinds and salsa are proof positive of the blessing of our wonderful Lord. Try it, you’ll like it. Yep, low carb. (relatively so anyway)
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Btw Joab I want to point something out to you.
WLC is a major proponent of the Kalam Cosmological argument. On the previous page pat, a fellow theist even says it garbage.
Do you consider it valid?[/quote]
Yes but it is far harder to defend while the one from contingency is far more elegant which WLC also defends.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Btw Joab I want to point something out to you.
WLC is a major proponent of the Kalam Cosmological argument. On the previous page pat, a fellow theist even says it garbage.
Do you consider it valid?[/quote]
Yes but it is far harder to defend while the one from contingency is far more elegant which WLC also defends.[/quote]
Well sir, I would be very interested to hear you and pat discuss Kalam. if that’s something you two would be interested in. I’d definitely read it.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Btw Joab I want to point something out to you.
WLC is a major proponent of the Kalam Cosmological argument. On the previous page pat, a fellow theist even says it garbage.
Do you consider it valid?[/quote]
Yes but it is far harder to defend while the one from contingency is far more elegant which WLC also defends.[/quote]
Well sir, I would be very interested to hear you and pat discuss Kalam. if that’s something you to would be interested in. I’d definitely read it.[/quote]
Well both are forms of cosmology with the Kalam starting with the metaphysical premise that whatever beings to exist has a cause and also the premise that the universe began to exist while in the argument from contingency one just needs to start with that a contingent thing exist.
There is no need to defend the first premise in the Kalam but the second premise is what requires defending. The second premise is usually defended by inductive inferences by pointing to the full body of successful models of cosmology and pointing out that they all have a beginning whether at a singularity, p-brane, quantum vacuum etc… which is usually how the premise is defended. It can also be defended by philosophical considerations of time,examples include the impossibility to traverse the infinite, contradictions arising out of an actual infinite which entails it couldn’t exist in reality. And essentially if the Kalam version is to be discussed both sides have to have an interest in cosmology, and read up on some philosophy of time.
In order to discuss the argument from contingency all one needs is a rudimentary understanding of logic.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Pat wrote:
And science has spent most of it’s history being wrong.[/quote]
When science is proven wrong, it is done so by science itself.
Science seeks truth, religion seeks obedience.
[/quote]
I don’t think so. Science seeks FACT. Religion and philosophy seeks truth, of the universal bent. The two ideas are separate. Oh i get what you’re trying to say very well, and there’s a component of truth to the “obedience” thing. But that’s the wrong statement to make about science. Science seeks the “how” more than the “why”.
Pat’s right about the history of science, but then that fact goes for politics, philosophy, religion, economics, and most other fields as well. I don’t think his statement says what he wants it to either frankly.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Pat wrote:
And science has spent most of it’s history being wrong.[/quote]
When science is proven wrong, it is done so by science itself.
Science seeks truth, religion seeks obedience.
[/quote]
I don’t think so. Science seeks FACT. Religion and philosophy seeks truth, of the universal bent. The two ideas are separate. Oh i get what you’re trying to say very well, and there’s a component of truth to the “obedience” thing. But that’s the wrong statement to make about science. Science seeks the “how” more than the “why”.
Pat’s right about the history of science, but then that fact goes for politics, philosophy, religion, economics, and most other fields as well. I don’t think his statement says what he wants it to either frankly.[/quote]
Science investigates “why” all the time. We just don’t always get the answer.
You see with religion “truth” changes depending on your religious belief. That is NOT a pathway to truth, it is not backed by reason, logic or evidence. Religious faith is nothing but a wild guess.
The only way you know you’ve arrived at the truth is through investigation, science and reason.
The exercise of applied reason and valuation of evidence that the scientific method is based off of, which themselves are based on logical absolutes, is the single most demonstrable path to understanding. It’s the closest you can get to truth given what we know now. If you’re going to use another method like say religion, how do you go about determining how reliable that method is?
[quote]pat wrote:
And science has spent most of it’s history being wrong.[/quote]
What’s your point?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
This guy talks about a fruit that has evolved from it’s natural inedible state to a lovely piece of fruit fit for human consumption through selective breeding, as if god’s intention lead to it growing curved to fit our human hands just right.
The guy’s a moron.[/quote]
Oh, I have seen this before and yes I agree, this guys is a moron. I get what I think he’s trying to say, but it’s an epic fail. In scope and size of this universe a one in trillion chance is actually a pretty high probability.
I don’t subscribe to the whole ‘monkey and the type writer’ thing.[/quote]
And soon you will come to realise that the chance of life evolving spontaneously in such an immense and vast universe has a pretty high probability too.
[i]Excellent![/i]
[/quote]
It has a really, really, really low probability actaully. But while intelligent design has some compelling aspects it’s not usable argument and hence I don’t. It doesn’t solve the issue of causation.
Just because I am not impressed with a particular argument that doesn’t mean I am going to suspend basic logic.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
And science has spent most of it’s history being wrong.[/quote]
What’s your point?[/quote]
Human’s have spent most of history being wrong.