| Author | Post |
|---|
Stef
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 03:45 am |
|
RealityCheck.
Completely off topic. I take it you do not believe in your "signature". I love tongue in cheeck. I take it you chose "RealityCheck" as a funny joke.
Should I be wrong. Am very curious to learn what reality is. In your book.
As I said. Completely off topic.
|
BigE
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 11:49 am |
|
Realitycheck wrote: ...and another sad sack tucks his tail between his legs and slinks from the field of battle...defeated at every level.
Actually.....Dano left because you finally admitted he was right (even though you don't realize it).
After asking you to prove your positive assertion that God doesn't exist (at least 6 times by my counting) you finally provided this link and said it reflected "good reasoning":
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/01/top-ten-myths-about-belief-in-god-and.html
Here is what that blogger said about proving there is no God:
"If we (atheists) demand that beliefs are not justified unless we have deductive proof, then all of us will have to throw out the vast majority of things we currently believe......Is the objection that one should never believe anything on the basis of faith? Faith is a bad thing? That would be a surprising position for the believer to take, and, ironically, the atheist is in complete agreement." (My underline)
So your blogger here has admitted that the non-existence of God can not be proved, and that this belief, no matter how reasonable, is ultimately based on faith!
As Dano would say: "Nice playin with ya....."
|
Danokan
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 03:28 pm |
|
BigE wrote: Realitycheck wrote: ...and another sad sack tucks his tail between his legs and slinks from the field of battle...defeated at every level.
Actually.....Dano left because you finally admitted he was right (even though you don't realize it).
After asking you to prove your positive assertion that God doesn't exist (at least 6 times by my counting) you finally provided this link and said it reflected "good reasoning":
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/01/top-ten-myths-about-belief-in-god-and.html
Here is what that blogger said about proving there is no God:
"If we (atheists) demand that beliefs are not justified unless we have deductive proof, then all of us will have to throw out the vast majority of things we currently believe......Is the objection that one should never believe anything on the basis of faith? Faith is a bad thing? That would be a surprising position for the believer to take, and, ironically, the atheist is in complete agreement." (My underline)
So your blogger here has admitted that the non-existence of God can not be proved, and that this belief, no matter how reasonable, is ultimately based on faith!
As Dano would say: "Nice playin with ya....."
BigE. I should have followed your lead on this one.
RC offers no argument. He offers no cognitive reasoning. He offers no debate. He piggy backs off of the arguments of others and then hurls insults.
No refutation of dc-2's points, just insults. No refutation of your points, just insults. No refutation of my points, just insults.
The fact is RC is not just anti-religious, but vehemently hate-filled anti-religious which makes one wonder what has happened to them to cause this.
I baited him with the posting of the picture and he swallowed it hook-line-sinker. I even refuted Lensy's questioning that RC was trying to piggy back on.
RC won't accept a picture. RC won't accept a photo. If God came down and slapped RC it would be dismissed as some delusional moment.
As you pointed out: the statement "There is no GOD" is self-defeating. Even Dawkins has enough sense not to say it.
Anyways.. been fun watching the implosion. Time to move on.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 03:29 pm |
|
Skeptic1 wrote: Danokan wrote: Skeptic1 wrote: Danokan, the way I see it you can use your logic only for this universe. If there was a regression (either finite or infinite), I'm not sure the logic of our universe applies outside our universe.
Here is the picture:
...{universe -2}......> {universe -1}.......> {universe zero or now}....
Does the logic that applies in our universe also apply in the other universes which can have very different "laws of nature"? Does the logic that applies in our universe also apply between universes? Your "origination" may be way down that line from our present logic.
I tried to point this out to you by asking what nothing means when you said "it came form nothing". If you mean nothing in our universe, I agree, but that doesn't mean it came form "nothing".
My diagram can be expanded with many possibilities: One universe producing the next universe while continuing to "exist" or one universe becoming the next universe.
Another picture:
/....> {universe -1 a} .....> {Universe zero a}
/
{universe -2}/.........> {universe -1}.......> {Universe zero}
..........> {universe -1b}.....> {Universe zero b}
We are in one of the zero universes.
I haven't even considered {universe -1a} and {universe -1b} both producing by some "interaction" our universe. That is, like a thunderstorm, the case where our universe didn't have a single cause.
Danokan, I'm not claiming any of this is true, but only pointing out problems with your list of possibilities. The logic of the macroscopic world is different than the logic of the quantum world. Until we learn the logic that applies between universes we can only speculate.
Understood Skeptic.
However, for the record, my statements are only dealing with the "known knowns" at this present time.
Understood, except you are assuming no regression of universes and that our universe was the "origination" point. That isn't known to be the case.
Final comment on my part Skeptic.
Known is we have a universe. The rest is speculation/hypothesis.
|
Skeptic1
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 2575 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 05:39 pm |
|
Danokan wrote: Skeptic1 wrote: Danokan wrote: Skeptic1 wrote: Danokan, the way I see it you can use your logic only for this universe. If there was a regression (either finite or infinite), I'm not sure the logic of our universe applies outside our universe.
Here is the picture:
...{universe -2}......> {universe -1}.......> {universe zero or now}....
Does the logic that applies in our universe also apply in the other universes which can have very different "laws of nature"? Does the logic that applies in our universe also apply between universes? Your "origination" may be way down that line from our present logic.
I tried to point this out to you by asking what nothing means when you said "it came form nothing". If you mean nothing in our universe, I agree, but that doesn't mean it came form "nothing".
My diagram can be expanded with many possibilities: One universe producing the next universe while continuing to "exist" or one universe becoming the next universe.
Another picture:
/....> {universe -1 a} .....> {Universe zero a}
/
{universe -2}/.........> {universe -1}.......> {Universe zero}
..........> {universe -1b}.....> {Universe zero b}
We are in one of the zero universes.
I haven't even considered {universe -1a} and {universe -1b} both producing by some "interaction" our universe. That is, like a thunderstorm, the case where our universe didn't have a single cause.
Danokan, I'm not claiming any of this is true, but only pointing out problems with your list of possibilities. The logic of the macroscopic world is different than the logic of the quantum world. Until we learn the logic that applies between universes we can only speculate.
Understood Skeptic.
However, for the record, my statements are only dealing with the "known knowns" at this present time.
Understood, except you are assuming no regression of universes and that our universe was the "origination" point. That isn't known to be the case.
Final comment on my part Skeptic.
Known is we have a universe. The rest is speculation/hypothesis.
We agree. But some speculation/hypothesis are presented as truth. Those that do that tend to try to tell others how to live based on the speculation/hypothesis.
Danokan, I enjoyed the intelligent conversation.
|
Radical Maverick
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 07:36 pm |
|
Lensy wrote: Radical Maverick wrote: that's another thing that always bothered me about God and 'beleivers'. why do we need to have a 'purpose' in order to mean something?
Or why do we have to have a god to tell us the difference between right and wrong?
There are so many that seem to need an imaginary father to imaginarily love and discipline them as if they were errant children.
I saw a church marquee the other day that read "God accepts men from all places as long as they fear him".
WTF?
I hear you loud and clear. You can be the best person you can be; help others, good simaritan and all that but if you don't beleive in 'the one true God' you're no better than the local serial killer. What sort of ever loving god needs to be feared?
|
Radical Maverick
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 07:39 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: Lensy wrote: Radical Maverick wrote: that's another thing that always bothered me about God and 'beleivers'. why do we need to have a 'purpose' in order to mean something?
Or why do we have to have a god to tell us the difference between right and wrong?
There are so many that seem to need an imaginary father to imaginarily love and discipline them as if they were errant children.
I saw a church marquee the other day that read "God accepts men from all places as long as they fear him".
WTF?
Of course we don't need any one like that, knowing right from wrong is pretty much ingrained in the "normal" human psyche. People were doing "right" and setting up rules about "wrong", long before the xian myth hit the boards. People were generous, loving and giving eons before the xians decided they'd take credit for the concepts with their imaginary god, imaginary saviour, imaginary Moses, imaginary Noah ad nauseum. One might point out as well, that the idea of "right" and "wrong" is one which does not seem to be popular in most xian faiths, at least in-so-far as sexual abuse of children is concerned.
I disagree, I've never really beleived in human nature past really, really basic instincts and as far as morality is concerned it seems that you need experience and reflection in order to develop it, not dogma and indoctrination. Right and wrong alot of the times is relative, moral dilemmas etc.
|
dc-2
Moderator
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 07:34 pm |
|
stevecanuck wrote: dc-2 wrote: Lensy wrote: Here is where your argument loses me:
1. You cannot prove a negative. As RC stated.
Both you and RC are absolutely incorrect on this.
Science operates by proving negatives.
A hypothesis is proposed, consequences derived, tests conducted to see if the consequences really hold or not. This is a test of the question:
"Is hypothesis A true?"
If the test shows the consequences do not hold, then the negative ("No, it is not true") has been proven.
It is actually impossible to prove the POSITIVE, that hypothesis A IS true! Even if the test is passed, there are potentially dozens of alternative hypotheses that could also explain the observed consequence.
For the recent thread on the subject:
http://perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=215308&forum_id=70
This is turning into a semantic argument (and I am known for my anti-semantic views).
The difference not recognized here is that of the observable versus the non-observable.
For example, I can prove a negative or a positive if the question is as simple as, "Is there a shoe in this box?".
I simply look in the box and say aye or nay.
Proving the existence of that which can never be observed in any way is where the actual impossiblitiy lies.
Your welcome.
Asserting an incorrect generalization in order to argue a tautology ( an untestable hypothesis cannot have any evidence for it), because you find the false generalization useful in theological debate is not something I welcome.
|
dc-2
Moderator
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 07:39 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: Well said Steve.
I get a kick out of DC2 quoting himself to prove himself right. Circular reasoning personified.
![[fallingdown]](/forums/themes/default/laughing.gif)
It only takes one instance of proving a negative to falsify your generalization.
I provided not just one instance, but the entire field of science, which is our major method of discovering truth in the world.
When you are done rolling on the ground, you should go enroll in a course in basic reasoning.
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 06:55 am |
|
Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Realitycheck wrote: ...and another sad sack tucks his tail between his legs and slinks from the field of battle...defeated at every level.
Actually.....Dano left because you finally admitted he was right (even though you don't realize it).
After asking you to prove your positive assertion that God doesn't exist (at least 6 times by my counting) you finally provided this link and said it reflected "good reasoning":
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/01/top-ten-myths-about-belief-in-god-and.html
Here is what that blogger said about proving there is no God:
"If we (atheists) demand that beliefs are not justified unless we have deductive proof, then all of us will have to throw out the vast majority of things we currently believe......Is the objection that one should never believe anything on the basis of faith? Faith is a bad thing? That would be a surprising position for the believer to take, and, ironically, the atheist is in complete agreement." (My underline)
So your blogger here has admitted that the non-existence of God can not be proved, and that this belief, no matter how reasonable, is ultimately based on faith!
As Dano would say: "Nice playin with ya....."
BigE. I should have followed your lead on this one.
RC offers no argument. He offers no cognitive reasoning. He offers no debate. He piggy backs off of the arguments of others and then hurls insults.
No refutation of dc-2's points, just insults. No refutation of your points, just insults. No refutation of my points, just insults.
The fact is RC is not just anti-religious, but vehemently hate-filled anti-religious which makes one wonder what has happened to them to cause this.
I baited him with the posting of the picture and he swallowed it hook-line-sinker. I even refuted Lensy's questioning that RC was trying to piggy back on.
RC won't accept a picture. RC won't accept a photo. If God came down and slapped RC it would be dismissed as some delusional moment.
As you pointed out: the statement "There is no GOD" is self-defeating. Even Dawkins has enough sense not to say it.
Anyways.. been fun watching the implosion. Time to move on.
Interesting that you (BigE) should pick out the only thing in that link which you "might" be able to twist to suit your ends, and ignore everything which suggested your position is, at the very, least questionable.
Mankind, many philosophers have claimed, have a need to believe life has meaning. Well it does, as much as one puts into it. It is only, in my personal view, those who are so insecure or primitive, who need imaginary gods to make their lives worthwhile.
Fact is, there are many primitives who are far more realistic than you poor deluded xians. They live in the moment, have no concept of time aside from the seasons. Life is the reason for living, not gods.
At the dewy fresh age of 9, I figured out religion was a total lie. Nothing I Have seen, heard, experienced or read since, has given me one one scintilla of reason to change that opinion.
And...I have lead an interesting life.
So, move on both of you. Safe in your delusions, secure in the protection they provide from reality. I have no problem with that. One must do what one must to get through the day.
I merely enjoy poking reality at you and watching you squirm.
And you both squirm most satisfactorily, impaled upon the dilemma of having to provide evidence of any reality for your belief.
|
BigE
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 10:52 am |
|
Realitycheck wrote: Interesting that you (BigE) should pick out the only thing in that link which you "might" be able to twist to suit your ends, and ignore everything which suggested your position is, at the very, least questionable.
Mankind, many philosophers have claimed, have a need to believe life has meaning. Well it does, as much as one puts into it. It is only, in my personal view, those who are so insecure or primitive, who need imaginary gods to make their lives worthwhile.
Fact is, there are many primitives who are far more realistic than you poor deluded xians. They live in the moment, have no concept of time aside from the seasons. Life is the reason for living, not gods.
At the dewy fresh age of 9, I figured out religion was a total lie. Nothing I Have seen, heard, experienced or read since, has given me one one scintilla of reason to change that opinion.
And...I have lead an interesting life.
So, move on both of you. Safe in your delusions, secure in the protection they provide from reality. I have no problem with that. One must do what one must to get through the day.
I merely enjoy poking reality at you and watching you squirm.
And you both squirm most satisfactorily, impaled upon the dilemma of having to provide evidence of any reality for your belief.
Hey....I just read the link YOU provided. And I went to the part of the article that related to this thread. No twisting required.
The fact that you posted something written by an atheist who actually disagrees with your point - makes me wonder if YOU even read the stuff you post. LOL.
Make me squirm? RC....I've already stated you're my favorite troll!!
Keep the stuff coming....the comedic relief is a nice break from my busy week.
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 02:10 pm |
|
I think you must have been bitten by a Jesuit, you manipulate, deny and/or ignore everything which contradicts your baseless beliefs. But I'm OK with that, it simply displays how fragile your belief is and how desperate you are to believe it. Belief in gods has been a crutch for man ever since the first primitive cowered in his cave scared spitless by thunder and lightening. You are merely one of millions of people who have not matured intellectually and emotionally enough to no longer need such a crutch.
Carry on.
|
BigE
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 04:50 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: I think you must have been bitten by a Jesuit, you manipulate, deny and/or ignore everything which contradicts your baseless beliefs. But I'm OK with that, it simply displays how fragile your belief is and how desperate you are to believe it. Belief in gods has been a crutch for man ever since the first primitive cowered in his cave scared spitless by thunder and lightening. You are merely one of millions of people who have not matured intellectually and emotionally enough to no longer need such a crutch.
Carry on.
How did I manipulate the information from the website you posted?
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 07:10 pm |
|
if you don't know...tsk.![[eyeroll]](/forums/themes/default/sarcasm.gif)
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 07:30 pm |
|
Stef wrote: RealityCheck.
Completely off topic. I take it you do not believe in your "signature". I love tongue in cheeck. I take it you chose "RealityCheck" as a funny joke.
Should I be wrong. Am very curious to learn what reality is. In your book.
As I said. Completely off topic.
I am absolutely serious (as much as I am serious about anything Stef). The reality is; there is nothing errant about saying "There is no god". It is totally errant, irrational and more than a little bit mad, to claim otherwise.
Now check that reality bud.
|
BigE
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 08:42 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: if you don't know...tsk.
I don't think I did.
But I was giving you the opportunity for some intelligent conversation. An opportunity to actually back up one of your claims.
My bad.
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 08:49 pm |
|
Thats the problem isn't it? You don't even understand what you are doing even while you are doing it.You ignored everything in that link except the one thing you figured would, in some way, support your position.
Intelligent conversation? How can one have such a discussion with someone who believes in imaginary beings and men who never were?
|
BigE
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 10:06 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: Thats the problem isn't it? You don't even understand what you are doing even while you are doing it. You ignored everything in that link except the one thing you figured would, in some way, support your position.
Intelligent conversation? How can one have such a discussion with someone who believes in imaginary beings and men who never were?
I posted the one thing relative "to being able to prove God doesn't exist", which is what Dano had challenged you to do six times.
Are you saying I twisted what the author wrote? If so, what do you think he is saying relative to that topic?
|
AMLSurvivor
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 10:33 pm |
|
BigE,
I've got a 55 gallon drum of TROLL AWAY should you need it. I saw those posts and you are correct. Me thinks reality check needs to check reality.
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 11:43 pm |
|
BigE wrote: Realitycheck wrote: Thats the problem isn't it? You don't even understand what you are doing even while you are doing it. You ignored everything in that link except the one thing you figured would, in some way, support your position.
Intelligent conversation? How can one have such a discussion with someone who believes in imaginary beings and men who never were?
I posted the one thing relative "to being able to prove God doesn't exist", which is what Dano had challenged you to do six times.
Are you saying I twisted what the author wrote? If so, what do you think he is saying relative to that topic?
Tsk. You and he and others of your ilk simply refuse to accept the fact there is no god to prove doesn't exist. One need not prove a negative. Negatives such as "there is no god" are self evident. Now if you are done diverting, perhaps you and Danokan and AML can get your addled heads together an prove there is a god? Remember, if you can do this, you will be famous for all eternity because it will be the first time.
|
Current time is 09:56 am | Page:   ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   |
|
