It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science, Meet Your Maker!

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Of course there is no plagiarizing in his post.
Give me a break. I recall him saying over in this thread that he was "working on" a post introducing the Anthropic Principle, I just didn't think "working on" a post meant "spending two minutes on Google with a copy and paste job" You seemed to be posting in that thread too, so I'm surprised you missed that.


Anyway, I already offered a website that refutes the claims of the Anthropic Principle, so I'll just wait for Bigwhammy to eventually edit his post to include his source and then attempt to wiggle his way out of the logic on the website I presented.




posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   


Nice try but you might want to stick to defeating your opponents argument with a better argument than always inventing some way to eliminate them using false allegations.

I was going to post a lengthy response involving pots and kettles but I'll leave it at this.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
No he's sort of right - I screwed up - I started looking for videos and I forgot to put the link for the source. I am still working on a thorough post for the anthropic principle but I held it back to make an entire thread later.

Anyway there is no rebuttal for the exact tuning of the universe. It just a fact. You can contend its a big accident but that is so highly improbable.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
No he's sort of right - I screwed up - I started looking for videos and I forgot to put the link for the source. I am still working on a thorough post for the anthropic principle but I held it back to make an entire thread later.

Anyway there is no rebuttal for the exact tuning of the universe. It just a fact. You can contend its a big accident but that is so highly improbable.


But since no one knows if the universe is fine-tuned, it isn't a fact, and you can't claim it as such. It's highly improbable, but since we're here now and there's still that small percent of it happening by chance, that's still a possibility.

Human vanity and wishful thinking doesn't make anything fact.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by davion]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
?

The Anthropic Principle is not in support of the god hypothesis or creationism in any way. Period. If one chooses to skew the evidence and misrepresent facts - which I understand is the fundamentalist's forte - then so be it. The facts remain; the Anthropic Principle is an alternative to design hypothesis. They stand in opposition.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Well it was the anthropic principal the convinced the famous atheist Dr Antony Flew. The specificity of the forces in nature toward supporting life on earth demands an explanation more than blind chance. A super intelligent cause being the best "theory" to date

I am talking about the anthropic principal as it was originally stated not the bastardized version of multi universe fantasies created by atheists to explain away fine tuning by invoking an infinite number of universes. All such theories violate Occam's razor in the worst way. They are really more desperation atheist theology than science.

[edit on 6/3/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I don't care if some "famous athiest" converted. This is a known tactic of theists as an attempt to add weight to their arguments.

Furthermore, from The God Delusion, pg 171-172:

Yet agin, we have the theist's answer on one hand, and the anthropic answer on the other. The theist says that God, when setting up the universe, tuned the fundamental constants of the universe so that each one lay in it's Goldilocks zone for the production of life. It is as though God had six knobs that he could twiddle, and he carefully tuned it's knob to its Goldilocks value. As ever, the theist's answer is deeply unsatisfying, because it leaves the existence of God unexplained. A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combinations of numbers itself, and that's very improbable indeed.


He goes on, but I'll summarize:
The Universe may not have any "knobs" to twiddle in the first place, they may depend upon eachother in as of yet unknown ways. And there could also be a multiverse or "landscape", which, although only speculation at this point, is simpler and more probable than an intelligent, calculating, all-knowing, all-powerful being arising out of nothingness. We know that, however improbable the fundamental constants may have been, they did align that way because we're here studying them.

I await your "Anthropic Principle" post, BigWhammy. It'll be interesting to see if you actually bring up a point that hasn't been debunked a hundred times already.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Well it was the anthropic principal the convinced the famous atheist Dr Antony Flew. The specificity of the forces in nature toward supporting life on earth demands an explanation more than blind chance. A super intelligent cause being the best "theory" to date

I am talking about the anthropic principal as it was originally stated not the bastardized version of multi universe fantasies created by atheists to explain away fine tuning by invoking an infinite number of universes. All such theories violate Occam's razor in the worst way. They are really more desperation atheist theology than science.

[edit on 6/3/2008 by Bigwhammy]


Yeah I especially like how for so long no one has ever found transitional fossils but now all of a sudden they seem to be finding new ones every day. Not that they are transitional but they call them that anyway the same way they call evolution a fact.

Misleading?

Hell yes but these are the same folks that have been busted by the US Congress and by the US senate for using Government resources and officials to aid them in acts of spying then lieing about it. The same folks that gave us piltdownman, (Hoax) Java Man, (Hoax) lucy,(Hoax) a load of bogus embryos by haekel, (Hoax) doctored moths, etc etc et-tedious-cetera. A host of other specious and spurious activities. I think it's time they either put up or shut up and show us something concrete or kick them and their silly sloppy theory to the curb.

With all the fossils they are finding now, I'd say anyday now some house wife will give birth to a new creature. You know sort of like those sharks that ooops not them,, Oh I know Crocs? how about turtles? Nope they been around millions of years too. Mmmmmm


Perhaps they have had some luck with those fruit flys?

Nope just more fruit flys and some deformed fruit flys but fruit flys nevertheless. The really sad part of this is, they actually believe

their own BS

- Con



[edit on 4-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlyCM
I don't care if some "famous athiest" converted. This is a known tactic of theists as an attempt to add weight to their arguments.

Furthermore, from The God Delusion, pg 171-172:

Yet agin, we have the theist's answer on one hand, and the anthropic answer on the other. The theist says that God, when setting up the universe, tuned the fundamental constants of the universe so that each one lay in it's Goldilocks zone for the production of life. It is as though God had six knobs that he could twiddle, and he carefully tuned it's knob to its Goldilocks value. As ever, the theist's answer is deeply unsatisfying, because it leaves the existence of God unexplained. A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combinations of numbers itself, and that's very improbable indeed.


He goes on, but I'll summarize:
The Universe may not have any "knobs" to twiddle in the first place, they may depend upon eachother in as of yet unknown ways. And there could also be a multiverse or "landscape", which, although only speculation at this point, is simpler and more probable than an intelligent, calculating, all-knowing, all-powerful being arising out of nothingness. We know that, however improbable the fundamental constants may have been, they did align that way because we're here studying them.



Well Jaysus Jasper, with all that imagination and all that "there may be" and their "could be" why not just throw God into the mix of speculation.

Dawkins doesn't know his arse from a hole in the ground.

- Con



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlyCM
I don't care if some "famous athiest" converted. This is a known tactic of theists as an attempt to add weight to their arguments.


Just cling to your faith. Apparently, "You don't care" about evidence either.

I don't know what is worse ignorance or apathy.

Now here's an excerpt from a non delusional book.


There is still a massive improbability that needs to be accounted for. Remember that the anthropic principle does not say that, given the billions of stars in the universe, it's remarkable that life turned up on our planet. Rather, it says that the entire universe with all the galaxies and stars in it had to be formed in a certain way in order for it to contain life at all. It's hard to disagree with the conclusion drawn by philosopher Antony Flew. Long a champion of atheism—he is one of the most frequently cited figures in atheist literature—Flew finally concluded that the fine-tuning of the universe at every level is simply too perfect to be the result of chance. Flew says that in keeping with his lifelong commitment "to go where the evidence leads," he now believes in God.''

Flew recognizes that the anthropic principle requires a better explanation than Lucky Us. So does astronomer Lee Smolin, who writes that "luck will certainly not do here. We need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case." The odds of us being here in the universe are so fantastic that some kind of a serious explanation is required. Deep down, one suspects that Weinberg and Dawkins know this.

D'Souza



He goes on, but I'll summarize:
The Universe may not have any "knobs" to twiddle in the first place, they may depend upon eachother in as of yet unknown ways. And there could also be a multiverse or "landscape", which, although only speculation at this point, is simpler and more probable than an intelligent, calculating, all-knowing, all-powerful being arising out of nothingness.


No it's not. Only if you have a preconceived bias to atheism. Oh it seems improbably that the universe is the way it is... Ok let's invent an infinite number of universes out of nothing with zero evidence just to rationalize it. The multiple universe fantasies are just weak cop outs in response to overwhelming evidence for design.

God didn't arise out of nothingness -that's a Darwinist type theory - God is eternal he never arose.

Flip a coin 100,000 times and every single time, it comes up heads. There are two possibilities. The first most obvious one is that somebody "rigged" it to come up heads every time. There is a second possibility that there are an infinite number of coins in circulation, and given infinite tossing and an infinite amount time eventually one set of throws would end up all heads. Now which of these explanations should a rational person choose? Use Occam's razor. Non delusional folks always go with the first one - it was rigged.



We know that, however improbable the fundamental constants may have been, they did align that way because we're here studying them.


Right they are that way aren't they? In spite of impossible odds. Wonder how that happened?




I await your "Anthropic Principle" post, BigWhammy. It'll be interesting to see if you actually bring up a point that hasn't been debunked a hundred times already.


I've yet to see you debunk a single point-

In an attempt you quoted Dawkins invoking infinite universe and other drivel not supported by evidence. Dr Lee Smolin who came up with the ideas Dawkins ascribes to even calls it a fantasy.



What is one to make of all this? As with all scientific theories, we begin by asking for the evidence. So what is the empirical evidence for oscillating and parallel and multiple universes? Actually, there isn't any. As Weinberg admits, "These are very speculative ideas ... without any experimental support." Smolin is even more candid. He calls his ideas "a fantasy.... It is possible that all I have done here is cobble together a set of false clues that only seem to have something to do with each other.... There is every chance that these ideas will not succeed."
D'Souza

Again you argued your side and I can respect that, but you have debunked nothing.


The Collapse of Atheism




[edit on 6/4/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


1: you're quoting D'souza

2 - 7: see #1

the man fails at so many aspects of intellectual debate...just see his attempt to debate christopher hitchens, who, though a bit sauced in the debate, dismantles him thoroughly.

you seem to have a vendetta against atheism
i don't see why.

atheism is a benign nonbelief. it doesn't say to do or not do anything and how one goes about life as an atheist is entirely up to them.

atheists don't do anything in the name of atheism
we don't kill in the name of atheism
we don't commit genocide in the name of atheism
and we've been around as long as theism
we're not going to go away
just learn to live with us.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


1: you're quoting D'souza


Yeah D'Souza is awesome! Not only is Dinesh D'Souza is the author of best selling books he was a presidential adviser to Ronald Regan. What are Hitchens qualifications? Free lance writer and known drunkard?



2 - 7: see #1

the man fails at so many aspects of intellectual debate...just see his attempt to debate christopher hitchens, who, though a bit sauced in the debate, dismantles him thoroughly.


And you are addressing his points - how? Oh you're not... just ad hominem.

People at the debate saw it different...


With that, the question and answer period began. Mr. Hitchens, mugging about alcoholism as is his wont, said his favorite miracle is the one where water was turned to wine. Mr. D'Souza reiterated that evolution can't account for morality. Mr. Hitchens said that when he was a socialist, he enjoyed giving blood. Mr. D'Souza said this was because Mr. Hitchens was raised in Christian Europe. Mr. Hitchens said "Yuck!"

And Mr. D'Souza got the last word, declaring that "the atheist is chafing under the laws of a world in which we are accountable. Atheism isn't an intellectual revolt, it's a moral one."

Phew. At this point anyone could have been forgiven for rushing the stage to grab Mr. Hitchens' cup and throwing it down his throat.

Mr. Hitchens lingered at his podium as the crowd clapped, looking as if there were more he wanted to say.

He didn't. And as Mr. D'Souza smiled and greeted admirers on the stage, signing copies of his new book, Mr. Hitchens made his way toward the door.

"Christopher is used to steamrolling his opponents," Mr. D'Souza told The Observer with all the boyish relish of a 26-year-old foreign-policy advisor to Ronald Reagan. (He's now 46.) "I've watched a couple of his debates, and they're very one-sided in his favor. So I was determined to be the equalizer."

He estimated that he'd done exactly that.

"I feel very pleased about it, and I'm looking forward to taking on the other atheists now," he said cheerfully.

Kiley Humphries, 22, the tall brunette Student Body President of King's College, was standing nearby.

"I feel like Dinesh won, because I don't feel like Hitchens ever answered the question of ‘Were these people really fighting for atheism?'" she said. She said that she was originally from Wichita, Kan. and that being a student at a Christian college in Manhattan is "a fascinating clash."
www.observer.com...



u seem to have a vendetta against atheism
i don't see why.


Because God does.



atheism is a benign nonbelief. it doesn't say to do or not do anything and how one goes about life as an atheist is entirely up to them.

atheists don't do anything in the name of atheism


You do... your avatar is an advertisement for atheism.



we don't kill in the name of atheism
we don't commit genocide in the name of atheism


Again... Some atheists do.



and we've been around as long as theism


No you haven't. There were no atheists in the Garden.



we're not going to go away


Oh yes you are. Jesus is coming back and on that day - atheism will end.



just learn to live with us.


Atheists are ignorant of the existence of God.

It's all about denying ignorance.

[edit on 6/4/2008 by Bigwhammy]

[edit on 6/4/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Yeah D'Souza is awesome!


if you're living in bizzarro world.



Not only is Dinesh D'Souza is the author of best selling books


argument ad populum

he's good because he sells a lot of books, therefore a lot of people think he's good



he was a presidential adviser to Ronald Regan.


argument from authority.

...and honestly, this isn't a political forum, so i'm not going to go there

...also, an astrologer was an adviser to regan, so i'll just say that he might not have had the best choice in advisers



What are Hitchens qualifications? Free lance writer and known drunkard?


argument ad hominem

well, at least he's got logical consistency, something you've not demonstrated

in fact, you've got 3 logical fallacies in response to one of my points.



And you are addressing his points - how? Oh you're not... just ad hominem.


....no
actually, i was saying that my own personal points 2-7 were mere repetitions of point #1, because i was in disbelief that anyone could find that man as anything but hilariously incompetent at discourse

i mean, colbert minced him in a matter of seconds...



People at the debate saw it different...


so?

you then quote one instance.
i'm going to have to say the proper set up to introducing that would be "this guy saw it differently"

i saw it. d'souza doesn't know how to argue, let alone debate.



Because God does.


nice justification. god also supports genocide. does that mean that your vendetta against atheists is now genocidal?

honestly, admire the good things atheists have done for humanity
don't want to? then get off ATS because you shouldn't be using the computer you're on...invented by a gay atheist.
that's a double whammy against god, eh?



You do... your avatar is an advertisement for atheism.


no, it's a personal statement and interpretation of the consequences of atheism and a display of my personal journey towards atheism.

i believe in things that can be objectively proven. the philosophical concept of absolute reality that is derived from scientific observation. i see the logical consequence of that as atheism...among the other reasons i have for being an atheist.

that's a personal message, not one of atheism.

some people are atheists because they do not believe in absolute reality and think that everything is purely subjective.





we don't kill in the name of atheism
we don't commit genocide in the name of atheism


Again... Some atheists do.


no, and the times you've attempted to prove this have been thoroughly refuted.

communists didn't kill in the name of atheism, they killed in the name of communism.

odd that every crime an atheist commits seems to be in the name of atheism while that's not the case for people of other religions

i'd like to see you prove that people have died in the name of there not being a god.



No you haven't. There were no atheists in the Garden.


there was no garden. all you can give me to prove that there was is a book full of contradictions and lies among other things (some of it is good...would kind of be hard to write a book that long without throwing in quite a bit of good stuff.)

..and even if there was, one could argue that god is an atheist as he doesn't believe in anything and simply knows all...seeing that theism is a matter of faith and belief, god couldn't be theistic in any way, shape, or form
thus, god is an atheist...
hmm



Oh yes you are. Jesus is coming back and on that day - atheism will end.


good sir, i don't take kindly to threats.

and he's quite overdue...



Atheists are ignorant of the existence of God.

It's all about denying ignorance.




if it was about denying ignorance, you wouldn't be quoting d'souza, espousing creationism, or saying that the garden of eden existed with a straight face



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Let's put it this way BigWhammy:

If Jesus comes back, I'll give your attacks and bigotry a second thought.

But if he doesn't, I won't. Regardless, you've (and the rest of the Christian gang on this forum) diverged so far from his original teachings that I really fail to see why I would be worse off.

But in the meantime;



The multiple universe fantasies are just weak cop outs in response to overwhelming evidence for design

I made it clear, and so did Dawkins, that so far it is mostly speculation.

I would like to see some "overwhelming evidence" for design that isn't just a misrepresentation/misinterpretation of the Anthropic Principle. Instead, you do little more than try to discredit your opponents (eg., Dawkins is "delusional")

By the way, whatever happened to misrepresenting the Big Bang?




God didn't arise out of nothingness -that's a Darwinist type theory - God is eternal he never arose.

?

In the paragraph directly above you mention "weak cop outs". As far as astronomy and physics go, there was a beginning (to this particular universe and all it's energy and matter...) and there will be an end if current trends continue, in the form of heat death, freeze death, big crunch, etc. According to that logic, something cannot be eternal. You are postulating the existence of a being that is simulaneously incredibly scientific and beyond the reach of science.



Flip a coin 100,000 times and every single time, it comes up heads. There are two possibilities. The first most obvious one is that somebody "rigged" it to come up heads every time.

Only one of those coins needed to be heads, and we are observing that "coin". That is what anthropic principle states. What you are failing to understand is that there is so much possibilty. There could be sequential universes, multiple universes, a "landscape", etcetera. Each one of those is mostly speculation, therefore on a similar level as the God hypothesis.



Right they are that way aren't they? In spite of impossible odds. Wonder how that happened?

As impossible as a calculating, omniscient, omnipotent being that defies most laws of physics?



I've yet to see you debunk a single point-

That's because you evade them all. "Weak cop outs".

Just to point this out... can you see what you are trying to do here? You are attacking man's desire to learn and to explore. If it weren't for science we would be no where, sacrificing pigs in the savannas of Africa. You are attacking man's nature and his development. I fail to see why any God would favour you over me. You are fulfilling every bad stereotype of religion and Christianity.

Science... even if it is the product of religion, doesn't raise religion to any higher levels. They stand in opposition, like a courageous son trying to overthrow a mindless, superstitious, arrogant, ignorant, control-freak father.

As an answer to your entire next (as in the one after MIMS') post:
I prefer scientific literature to fantasy stories. If this stuff actually happens, I'll be the first to believe it. I argue for truth, not for ideology.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlyCM
Let's put it this way BigWhammy:


I made it clear, and so did Dawkins, that so far it is mostly speculation.


At least you admit it.


I would like to see some "overwhelming evidence" for design that isn't just a misrepresentation/misinterpretation of the Anthropic Principle. Instead, you do little more than try to discredit your opponents (eg., Dawkins is "delusional")


Haha a response to "The God Delusion" ? Get it? It's called satire.




By the way, whatever happened to misrepresenting the Big Bang?




The Big Bang proves creation. The Bible was right atheists were wrong.




In the paragraph directly above you mention "weak cop outs". As far as astronomy and physics go, there was a beginning (to this particular universe and all it's energy and matter...) and there will be an end if current trends continue, in the form of heat death, freeze death, big crunch, etc. According to that logic, something cannot be eternal. You are postulating the existence of a being that is simulaneously incredibly scientific and beyond the reach of science.


This is amusing. Because for centuries atheists held an eternal universe to disprove Biblical creation. Along comes Lemaître, Einstein, Hubble, oops evidence disproved atheism... regroup... let's try a infinite number of univerese
Pathetic.

So if an eternal universe was acceptable what so weird about an eternal creator. The anthropic principle is best explained by super intelligence. You're grasping at straws and violating Occams razor due to your atheist faith. Try to stick with the evidence like Dr Flew did and the truth will come afterwards.

Correct God is "incredibly scientific and beyond the reach of science." Actually he created the laws that science discovers. Science is just mans attempt to guess what God did and how.



Only one of those coins needed to be heads, and we are observing that "coin". That is what anthropic principle states. What you are failing to understand is that there is so much possibilty. There could be sequential universes, multiple universes, a "landscape", etcetera. Each one of those is mostly speculation, therefore on a similar level as the God hypothesis.


No you missed the point to describe mulitverse you would need infinite coins. Good luck with that. It's just New Age Dreaming for atheists. They all would have to be heads to match the level of precision our universe is tuned to. Actually worse.






As impossible as a calculating, omniscient, omnipotent being that defies most laws of physics?



Created the laws of physics.




Just to point this out... can you see what you are trying to do here? You are attacking man's desire to learn and to explore. If it weren't for science we would be no where, sacrificing pigs in the savannas of Africa. You are attacking man's nature and his development. I fail to see why any God would favour you over me. You are fulfilling every bad stereotype of religion and Christianity.


No if it weren't for Christianity we would be "sacrificing pigs in the savannas of Africa" and there would be no science.



Science... even if it is the product of religion, doesn't raise religion to any higher levels. They stand in opposition, like a courageous son trying to overthrow a mindless, superstitious, arrogant, ignorant, control-freak father.


NEWSFLASH :: Science =/=atheism

They are only in opposition to you because you are an atheist and its your nature to oppose God in spite of evidence. Science is founded on faith in the rational intelligibility of the universe, that faith came from monotheism. Science is not at all in opposition to my faith it proves it with each new discovery. I wonder are you a profesional scientist? Do you hold a BS degree at minimum? Because 40% of actual scientists surveyed are theists. When you count agnostics atheists are not the majority.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



n fact, you've got 3 logical fallacies in response to one of my points.



Now if that's not the pot calling the kettle black. Nice quote mine.

Your so called point was nothing but "argument ad hominem" against D'Souza.



because i was in disbelief that anyone could find that man as anything but hilariously incompetent at discourse


And once more with the very same argument ad hominem - never yet to dispute one actual piece of his information. Pathetic.



so?

you then quote one instance.
i'm going to have to say the proper set up to introducing that would be "this guy saw it differently"

i saw it. d'souza doesn't know how to argue, let alone debate.


Which discredits the information in his book How?

thats 2 ad hominem responses so far for this one post MIMS.



nice justification. god also supports genocide.


Make that 3 now your moving on to attempt to ad hominem attack God.

And you believe you have the authority to sit in judgment of God from where? Sound like childhood authority issues...



does that mean that your vendetta against atheists is now genocidal?


Opps make that 4 ad hominem fallacies now. You are attempting to include me in you fantasy fest as well. At least I'm in good company with D'Souza and God.



honestly, admire the good things atheists have done for humanity
don't want to? then get off ATS because you shouldn't be using the computer you're on...invented by a gay atheist.
that's a double whammy against god, eh?


Hardly. Man is created in Gods image - anything good that any man does is just a reflection of his God given abilities. Oh I acknowledge that atheists can do good works. But just because an arrogant minority choose to foolishly deny Gods reality in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary does nothing to diminish God. It's just sad for them.



that's a personal message, not one of atheism.


Damn when I read it it says "Atheism... because reality is awesome"

Hmm sure looks like it says "atheism" to me...

what do you claim it says? "My personal message is awesome" Might need to edit a little then it still says "atheism."



odd that every crime an atheist commits seems to be in the name of atheism while that's not the case for people of other religions


The herding cats fallacy.

Oh there's nothing done in the name of atheism now? Just a minute ago the invention of the computer was credited to atheism. Like to have it both ways don't you?



one could argue that god is an atheist as he doesn't believe in anything and simply knows all...seeing that theism is a matter of faith and belief, god couldn't be theistic in any way, shape, or form
thus, god is an atheist...


"God is an atheist..."
devastating rebuttal.



good sir, i don't take kindly to threats.


No threat... That's a promise!



and he's quite overdue...


By whose watch?


1Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
1 thess 5



if it was about denying ignorance, you wouldn't be quoting d'souza, espousing creationism, or saying that the garden of eden existed with a straight face


Let's see you never even tried to refute a single one D'Souza's facts just critiqued his debating style. You lose there by 2 ad hominem fallacies. Then another ad hom against God. Another ad hom against me. Then the one herding cats fallacy. Add a creation fallacy
(Atheists claimed an infinite universe for a century - Big Bang proves creation - you lose there as well.)

And all you have left is the Garden of Eden to discredit. Well unless you can go back in time that ones up for grabs. Nice try at presenting nothing but a collection of fallacies and obtusifications but you have egg on your face. Ignorance denied.






[edit on 6/4/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
It is human nature to assume a human (god) responsibility for everything. It is a survival mechanism to avoid false negatives, and developed when the real threat to humans became other humans. This is why religion or a belief in a higher power is universal among human societies, especially in children. It also presents an interesting point: while a very limited amount of atheists claim to have converted to theism, 100% of atheists are derived from theists. I am not "atheist by nature" because no such nature among humans exists.

Again BigWhammy, you make all these claims but present no evidence. You appear to be getting rather desperate (really I doubt even theists would be at your side at this point) and you are turning your faith into a real mockery, at best. When I can be presented with sophisticated, non-arrogant arguments or at least philosophies, I might consider returning to this thread. But for now, I think Darwin, Dawkins and Harris, among others, have said all that needs to be said here.

Actually, I will add one more bit: you are not a YEC (or at least claim not to be) but seem to call for a mostly literal translation of the bible. Now honestly: how can you so strongly support this book, and yet not agree with so many of it's principles? If the bible is the word of God, should you not support all of it's verses and scriptures? Who gives you the authority to support some and abandon others? Certainly not God.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by SlyCM]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


1: you're quoting D'souza

2 - 7: see #1


just see his attempt to debate christopher hitchens, who, though a bit sauced in the debate, dismantles him thoroughly.


Yeah, almost as humiliating as when lennox effortlessly shut out petting zoo attendant Dick Dawkins who failed miserably, hilariously, embarrasingly, unequivocally got his butt kicked royally, a total melt down of dawkins mediocre intelligence and over rated reputation.



you seem to have a vendetta against atheism
i don't see why.


Vendetta assumes Atheists are important enough to muster the required hatred and anger to carry out such a vendetta. Such cloak and dagger subterfuge are the signature tactics of Darwinist Neo Atheist's Madd.



atheism is a benign nonbelief. it doesn't say to do or not do anything


Precisely, So why then madd? I nmean according to your description of do nothing, stand for nothing, contribute to nothing, help nothing, share nothing, love nothing, lifestyle, WE would be the only ones for anyone to have a vendetta against and Atheists do and has been proven



atheists don't do anything in the name of atheism


It doesn't matter that Atheists are too ashamed to do anything for the pride ot Atheists in the name of Atheism.

Maddness, No one cares what you do as anonymous Atheists. It doesn't matter that you don't do anything in the name of Atheism, it's what you all do BECAUSE of your Atheism that counts.



we don't kill in the name of atheism


But they have killed millions of Christians as cowardly anonymous Atheist's who carried out these acts of bigotry, not in the name of atheism but as a result of Atheism, their Atheism.



and we've been around as long as theism

we're not going to go away

just learn to live with us.


Millions have died trying.

- Con



[edit on 5-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlyCM


It is human nature to assume a human (god) responsibility for everything. It is a survival mechanism to avoid false negatives, and developed when the real threat to humans became other humans. This is why religion or a belief in a higher power is universal among human societies, especially in children. It also presents an interesting point: while a very limited amount of atheists claim to have converted to theism, 100% of atheists are derived from theists. I am not "atheist by nature" because no such nature among humans exists.


Where do you get this junk pop psychology,, Dawkins moronic memetics?



Again BigWhammy, you make all these claims but present no evidence. You appear to be getting rather desperate (really I doubt even theists would be at your side at this point) and you are turning your faith into a real mockery, at best


What the hell are you trying to prove guy? You think that Christian reputation you are trying to get him to live up to is clever? None of us, NOT whammy nor any other Christian salty enough to have seen your Atheist rehearsed condescending cookie cutter reprisals and ridicule mean jack squat to us.

You think whammy seeks your approval Atheist?

He would have to look up to you first

I can tell you,,

he doesn't

- Con




[edit on 5-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


When I read the title of your thread, I thought, "looks interesting..." Then, I clicked on it and said (out loud), "OMG. This guy - again!"

Seriously, I am not going to exhaust myself with all the points that people have already made to you based on logical reason and scientific proof. Obviously, nothing ever gets through anyway. Also, you seem like a very educated person, so I'm sure you already know all the facts that I could list here to argue with you. (Which also confuses me - because you DO seem education and reasonable, I don't understand for the life of me why you haven't seen right through your "truth" and "faith" already.)

But...I have another point to make. As a person who lived a life of Christianity for the first 21 (brainwashed) years of my life, I don't see anything "Christ-like" about you in any of your threads. You waste so much time here trying to prove a point that is unable to be proven. Couldn't you be using your time to serve humanity - the supposed entire basis on which Christianity rests?

I'm referring to things such as serving soup in a transient home, working in Africa for the eradication of Malaria, volunteering at an animal shelter, delivering meals to the sick, etc, etc, etc.

Oh, by the way - all of the above are activities that I enjoy. And - I don't think I'll be "rewarded" in an afterlife for them.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join