[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< While he conceded that some smart people are, indeed, religious, <<<>>> but they’re not creationists he said. <<<>>> There a world of difference between a serious religious person and a creationist, and especially a Young Earth Creationist, who thinks the world is only 10,000 years old. >>>[/quote]Are you callin me a trivial stupid person Headhunter? =] Don’t be fumblin n stumblin around n gittin all shy on me now. You wouldn’t do that would ya? Go ahead. Lemme have it. I can take it. I insist.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< While he conceded that some smart people are, indeed, religious, <<<>>> but they’re not creationists he said. <<<>>> There a world of difference between a serious religious person and a creationist, and especially a Young Earth Creationist, who thinks the world is only 10,000 years old. >>>[/quote]Are you callin me a trivial stupid person Headhunter? =] Don’t be fumblin n stumblin around n gittin all shy on me now. You wouldn’t do that would ya? Go ahead. Lemme have it. I can take it. I insist.
[/quote]
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
Evolution is proved…plain and simple. Research that site from Lenski’s work at Michigan State. You will laugh at Creationism.
I know God exists. But God despises churches and faiths; those are false idols created by men. If anything is worth worshipping, it is the human mind, esp when it does math and science.
You don’t know squat and you didn’t answer my question.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< While he conceded that some smart people are, indeed, religious, <<<>>> but they’re not creationists he said. <<<>>> There a world of difference between a serious religious person and a creationist, and especially a Young Earth Creationist, who thinks the world is only 10,000 years old. >>>[/quote]Are you callin me a trivial stupid person Headhunter? =] Don’t be fumblin n stumblin around n gittin all shy on me now. You wouldn’t do that would ya? Go ahead. Lemme have it. I can take it. I insist.
[/quote]
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
Evolution is proved…plain and simple. Research that site from Lenski’s work at Michigan State. You will laugh at Creationism.
I know God exists. But God despises churches and faiths; those are false idols created by men. If anything is worth worshipping, it is the human mind, esp when it does math and science.[/quote]
Nice equivocation. You point to e-coli evolving into e-coli and then expect us to accept that that somehow provides evidence that all living things share a common ancestor.
It is beyond irresponsible to extrapolate those results to try and prove the grand theory of evolution.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Nonsense, nothing is extra sensory. Without senses the mind can’t form, and without a mind logic can’t be applied or constructed.
You’re simply not consistent, and that makes you two-faced.[/quote]
nonsense. logic is not contingent on any mind. the laws of logic (law of identity, law of non-contradiction, law of the excluded middle etc) would all still exist if minds did not. of course, no one would be applying them…
(sorry to butt in on your convo)
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Nonsense, nothing is extra sensory. Without senses the mind can’t form, and without a mind logic can’t be applied or constructed.
You’re simply not consistent, and that makes you two-faced.[/quote]
nonsense. logic is not contingent on any mind. the laws of logic (law of identity, law of non-contradiction, law of the excluded middle etc) would all still exist if minds did not. of course, no one would be applying them…
(sorry to butt in on your convo)[/quote]
Correct.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< While he conceded that some smart people are, indeed, religious, <<<>>> but they’re not creationists he said. <<<>>> There a world of difference between a serious religious person and a creationist, and especially a Young Earth Creationist, who thinks the world is only 10,000 years old. >>>[/quote]Are you callin me a trivial stupid person Headhunter? =] Don’t be fumblin n stumblin around n gittin all shy on me now. You wouldn’t do that would ya? Go ahead. Lemme have it. I can take it. I insist.
[/quote]
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
Evolution is proved…plain and simple. Research that site from Lenski’s work at Michigan State. You will laugh at Creationism.
I know God exists. But God despises churches and faiths; those are false idols created by men. If anything is worth worshipping, it is the human mind, esp when it does math and science.[/quote]
Nice equivocation. You point to e-coli evolving into e-coli and then expect us to accept that that somehow provides evidence that all living things share a common ancestor.
It is beyond irresponsible to extrapolate those results to try and prove the grand theory of evolution.[/quote]
Schmichael if you’re too lazy to actually look at evidence then why do you even bother asking for it?
You just sit there holding the position of “I’m right and I don’t care what anyone says even if they are professional scientists I’m going to simply deny their evidence and live in my own happy little world where I invent my own imaginary reality”
Headhunter is right, Evolution is proven. There is no debate. There is only you on the outside not accepting evolution, for some reason, whatever that may be. I still don’t think you explained yet why you choose to not believe what science tells us.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I can prove it you are wrong by one simple request. Prove to me, beyond the shadow of any doubt, deductively, that you exist.
Your inability to do that will likely not make damn bit of difference in your ‘beliefs’, but it will prove you are wrong.[/quote]
I can do that very easily: I am my body. I, my character/ego/id/personality, depend on my body as it’s source and sustenance. My body exists, therefore I exist.[/quote]
How do I know that?
I don’t know that you have a body nor that you are in it. I simply may be absolutely nuts and completely imagining you. I don’t know you have a body at all. You probably do, but I have no proof. I don’t know I am interacting with you, I could be interacting with somebody else all together and think it’s you. Maybe there is no you at all.
There is further no evidence that your ‘character/ego/id/personality’ exist in a body, it doesn’t have to. There is no evidence of logical component that shows that your ‘character/ego/id/personality’ requires your body. You could be a computer for all I know. In other words you have provided zero evidence, at all, that you exist outside my head, which may or may not exist.
All I have is your word that you exist, it requires faith for me to believe that, because I cannot know it.
On top of that you said something very interesting. What do you mean ‘you’ are in your body. Sounds like a great argument for mind/ body dualism. And what is this ‘you’? Sounds very much like a metaphysical proposition to me.
You cannot prove you exist, there is no logic behind it at all. And further you have failed to prove that any of your perceptions are even remotely accurate.
You probably do exist, but you failed miserably proving it. You really need to spend some time reading DesCartes. That would clear it up for you.[/quote]
I assume a level of sanity on your part. If you’re delusional or otherwise mentally incapacitated then your judgment is impaired and you won’t be taken seriously.
[/quote]
Ad hominem fail. Calling me delusional does not prove that you exist outside of my mind, or an mid for that matter. I could meet you face to face and that still would not prove you exist. It’s not what’s about what’s likely, it’s what you can prove and you haven’t proven shit.
It would be empirical evidence for your existence, but it’s not a deductive truth. That alone wouldn’t mean that I am not delusional about your existence. A scary amount of people see things and/ or people that others cannot. Are they crazy or are you? You cannot know. The probability of truth increases with consensus. But consensus is far from absolute. Not to long ago the consensus was the Earth was flat. Their senses told them the Earth was flat, everybody agreed the Earth was flat, but the Earth isn’t flat.
So we meet, and in my mind, I see you exist, but it doesn’t mean you do. Another fail.
You just proved my point EXACTLY. You can be fooled and think it’s real as hell. If nobody is around to tell you different, then it’s real to you, but it may not be real.
The objects of the mind don’t exist physically. Proof? look at numbers. They do not exist physically, they are purely metaphysical objects. That’s duelism right there. A number does not physically exist in your brain, it’s a metaphysical construct. If we did an MRI on your brain, while your thinking of a number, I promise that number would not show up in the MRI. It’s a concept. Concepts aren’t physical, your brain’s perception of it is a detection of the metaphysical and that is dualism. It’s clear your not doing your homework here because your failing at every turn. You are worse than before, it seems your so enamored with empiricism, that it’s clouding your ability to understand reality in it’s true form.
It doesn’t make a fuck what you perceive, it only matters what you can prove and you have not proven anything other than you don’t understand the subject matter very well at all.
In all our conversations you have gone completely backwards in your understanding. It’s not me who is having delusions, it’s you. You have to deny the truth, you have to deny reality to make your world paradigm work. Lying to yourself only works for a while, it will fail you. It has in this dialog and it will continue until you understand deduction vs. induction, what it actually real and what you perceive as real.
The proof is in the pudding, if reality were as you say, then everybody would experience and understand it exactly the same way. But out 7 billion people in the world, there are 7 billion perceptions and your world 7 billion versions of reality. If you were right, there would be 7 billion people in the world and only one reality. That’s how I know your wrong and people have known these facts for centuries. This is nothing new, you just haven’t done your homework, but that’s your own damn fault.
Here’s a great video that talks about faith and why it’s nonsensical to believe in the god of the bible or any god for that matter. Skip to 6 minutes for the best part but the whole thing is pretty good:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
â??I donâ??t think that religion has anything useful to teach us,â?? Dawkins proclaimed this week in an interview with CNN, going on to tout evolution as undeniable fact. â??Itâ??s as certain as the fact that the earth and the other planets orbit the sun.â??
Of those Americans who believe that God created human beings and that the earth isnâ??t millions of years old, as evolutionary science contends, Dawkins claims there is a â??deep, profound ignorance.â?? While he conceded that some smart people are, indeed, religious, he drew some important distinctions.
â??There are many very educated people who are religious but theyâ??re not creationists,â?? he said. â??Thereâ??s a world of difference between a serious religious person and a creationist, and especially a Young Earth Creationist, who thinks the world is only 10,000 years old.â??
Dawkins is a moron. I like how in the beginning of his book, ‘The God Delusion’ he uses an analogy of a garden and why we just can’t just appreciate it for what it is. Hid fucking epic fail with that analogy, is that a garden has a gardener, other wise it would just be a fucking jungle. And people believe this stupidity. It’s a laugh riot.
I can say that people who read and believe people like Dawkins and Rand, manage to make themselves stupider. His whole shtick seems to be about ignoring how things happened and just appreciate that they did. I can’t think of a better way to go no where. He is intellectually lazy yet some of you bozo’s hold him up like some golden dildo.
There is no a single proposition you can present from Dawkins that I cannot absolutely destroy drunk and blind. Present one an I can tell you why it’s wrong. Go ahead try me.
Here’s a couple great Dawkin’s quotes that relate to this thread:
“Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.”
- Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
- Richard Dawkins
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Tribulus why would I even bother with you when you’re willing to say things like:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Science points directly and inescapably to the God of the bible.
[/quote]
What is your explanation for saying something so stupid? Do I even want to hear your explanation? Not really. Your opinion means nothing to me after reading your posts. You’re a complete whack. That’s my honest opinion.[/quote]Ok. I did apologize to you on the last page btw. In case you missed it.
[/quote]
Yes thank you Tribulus. And thank you for private messaging me about the slash I forgot in one of my quote tags…
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Here’s a great video that talks about faith and why it’s nonsensical to believe in the god of the bible or any god for that matter. Skip to 6 minutes for the best part but the whole thing is pretty good:
[/quote]
You thought that was great? So because he doesn’t understand the Bible and and why and how God doe what he does, you shouldn’t believe it? His lack of understanding is his own problem. Just because he does not understand the Bible and it’s origin, point, purpose and authorship, neither disproves that the text is wrong, nor the existence of God. It just proves he doesn’t get it. Again, that’s his own fault, perhaps he should do some more research.
Ultimately what counts in a text is what it says. No author is famous or important unless his writing has some value. So unless you understand the texts of the bible, the intended purpose for each verse, chapter, book and Bible itself, along with the culture it came from and intended audience, then you really don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. AND even for the sake of argument, the Bible was a load of crap, it doesn’t mean that God does not exist. That can be prove philosophically without the Bible or religion. I love how atheists always try to mine the Bible for phrases that sound mean on the surface, out of context with out putting forth the slightest effort to understand it with in it’s intended context, purpose, culture and audience.
The fallacy he is engaging in is argumentum ad ignorantiam"I don’t get it, so it must be false!" That’s hilarious to me. I don’t understand neutrinos, they must be fake.
I’d like to see an atheist argue against something that is actually a theist philosophical proposition and try to argue against that. All I see is tactics of avoiding the actual points to argule a lesserr point which is also a Red Herring.
If you are going to argue against the bible, it helps to know a little something about it.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Here’s a couple great Dawkin’s quotes that relate to this thread:
“Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.”
- Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
[/quote]
Stalin proved that shit wrong. The whole atheist utopian society has been tried. It resulted in the greatest mass murders history has ever seen.
[quote]
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
- Richard Dawkins [/quote]
That’s an ad hominem, which is a fallacy, which makes it by default, wrong.
Do you have a ‘point’ he makes that is arguable, or just silly slogans? “There’s no God, ra, ra, ra, kick 'em in the bra”
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Here’s a couple great Dawkin’s quotes that relate to this thread:
“Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.”
- Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
- Richard Dawkins [/quote]
Thanks, but we already knew he was a jackass.
Now that is 100% true.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Here’s a great video that talks about faith and why it’s nonsensical to believe in the god of the bible or any god for that matter. Skip to 6 minutes for the best part but the whole thing is pretty good:
[/quote]
You thought that was great? So because he doesn’t understand the Bible and and why and how God doe what he does, you shouldn’t believe it? His lack of understanding is his own problem. Just because he does not understand the Bible and it’s origin, point, purpose and authorship, neither disproves that the text is wrong, nor the existence of God. It just proves he doesn’t get it. Again, that’s his own fault, perhaps he should do some more research.
Ultimately what counts in a text is what it says. No author is famous or important unless his writing has some value. So unless you understand the texts of the bible, the intended purpose for each verse, chapter, book and Bible itself, along with the culture it came from and intended audience, then you really don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. AND even for the sake of argument, the Bible was a load of crap, it doesn’t mean that God does not exist. That can be prove philosophically without the Bible or religion. I love how atheists always try to mine the Bible for phrases that sound mean on the surface, out of context with out putting forth the slightest effort to understand it with in it’s intended context, purpose, culture and audience.
The fallacy he is engaging in is argumentum ad ignorantiam"I don’t get it, so it must be false!" That’s hilarious to me. I don’t understand neutrinos, they must be fake.
I’d like to see an atheist argue against something that is actually a theist philosophical proposition and try to argue against that. All I see is tactics of avoiding the actual points to argule a lesserr point which is also a Red Herring.
If you are going to argue against the bible, it helps to know a little something about it.[/quote]
“Just because he does not understand the Bible and it’s origin, point, purpose and authorship, neither disproves that the text is wrong,”
That was one of the points in the video:
If God wanted to deliver his message, why did he only deliver it to very few people using text, and then beyond that make it difficult to understand? Why wouldn’t he make it very clear so that there is no question at all?
And I agree with this “Ultimately what counts in a text is what it says.” because if you look at what the bible says, I think it condones murder, slavery among other things which is completely immoral.
And by the way , Matt Dillahunty knows the Bible VERY WELL. He was a Christian for 25 years or so and he studied the Bible and the Religion in detail. Once he did this with an open mind (which is what a lot of people in this thread are lacking) he ended up rejecting religion.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
…murder, slavery among other things which is completely immoral.
[/quote]
Please don’t use the word immoral if you don’t mean it.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
What I can say about that article is that I have a lot of learning about the problem of the one and the many. Quite frankly, before reading any of that article I only had a definitional understanding of it. [/quote]
That website is great and the scholarly articles are deep philosophically if that’s what one enjoys, and has a Q and A, popular articles etc… intended for a more general audience. If you have any questions feel free to ask me.
Depending on where you are in Texas there may be a chapter near you composed of Christians who take the role of the mind in the Christian life very seriously if you want to meet some in person.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
…murder, slavery among other things which is completely immoral.
[/quote]
Please don’t use the word immoral if you don’t mean it.[/quote]
Please don’t make weird statements and then not explain what the heck you’re talking about. I.e. How do I not mean it?