|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 10/08/2004 : 15:45:28 [Permalink]
|
Wow, Filthy. Reading that made me realize how lucky we are to have you on our side. 
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2004 : 16:14:35 [Permalink]
|
Hey, cut yourselves some slack. If I were to include it all, the substance would be diluted. And it would be so long that you would still be reading it. Or not. Some so-called skeptics have short attention spans and bore easily.
I'll get to the rest of you minions of Beelzebub in due course and lo, you shall rip out your own very eyes with seafoof forks, in horror when you see what a sweet and loving God has in store for your shrunken and rotting souls.
My message is plain; my purpose is clear. From the roots of grass, I rise to smite the heathen!
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2004 : 17:15:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
With seafoof forks?
Oops!
But then again, why not?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2004 : 20:47:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I see now that you all fail to realize that you have been blinded by ivory-tower, over-educated, ex-hippie, commie-ahteist faggots who have come to serve Satan his daily pottage of the souls of the righteous! Your eyes have become scaled and your tongues forked!
gdamnit filthy!!
Now I'm cleaning Mnt Dew off my keyboard and monitor.... as I happened to be taking a nice long gulp as I was reading that ... and spewed it out my nose onto the aforementioned bits of tech.
Well, atleast my sinuses are cleared out for the moment. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2004 : 03:44:16 [Permalink]
|
| Yes... Filthy has that effect on people... |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Plyss
Skeptic Friend
Netherlands
231 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2004 : 05:48:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Very well. I see now that you all fail to realize that you have been blinded by ivory-tower, over-educated, ex-hippie, commie-ahteist faggots who have come to serve Satan his daily pottage of the souls of the righteous!
On a more serious note, Filthy's post poses an interesting challenge.
The type of reasoning he presents here is (though in filthy's case obviously in joke) fairly common on the internet.
Since the post if filled with so many misrepresentations, fallacies, incorrect data and outright lies that debate is almost futile. The response most people would make would probably be something along the lines of "You are an idiot. Do you realise this?" or a sarcastic post making fun of your opponents views (Guilty as charged). Both these practices are easy to relate to.
Nevertheless, it will work against you if your goal is to persuade the person you are debating of the errors in his line of reasoning and educate him on a more rational alternative.
Unfortunately, an elaborate rebuttal will take ages to write and will in all likelihood never be read by your opponent.
Does this make writing a rebuttal pointless?
It is my opinion that it does not. If one posts on a public forum your rebuttal will be read by several people, at least some of which may be susceptible to reason. In the very least a post making use of correct spelling, grammar and punctuation without resorting to name-calling or sarcasm might convince other forum readers your posts are not to be dismissed out of hand. It is obvious that this will get tedious very quickly but reading the talk.origins post-of-the-month archive shows it may pay off, as does this link.
quote:
From http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul03.html#run
Yes, I had participated in some online debates on usenet. I was never the obnoxious punk (and I hated that there were such people online who claimed to be Christians). I put out the standard arguments and objected to many of the offered explanations. But the seeds of the destruction of my dogmatism had already sprouted.
The obnoxious punks helped. While I was in a dogmatist sect, they were really pretty reasonable people for the most part. Obnoxious behaviour was a sure sign of a weak argument, a weak faith, a weak mind, and a weak morality. And I saw a pattern. For the most part, the scientists on usenet were reasonable people. The so-called Christians crusading for creationism were generally obnoxious. They degenerated quickly into name-calling and taunting. There was no "reason" in their reasoning. There was obvious malice! If the Christians taking this position I held had to resort to this level of behaviour, then something was wrong!
Such testimonies have convinced me there is a point to writing proper responses to nonsense, even if the person you're addressing seems to be displaying a minimal capacity for rational thought.
[Edit: Sarcastic pseudo-creationist post deleted] |
| Edited by - Plyss on 10/09/2004 07:15:42 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2004 : 07:11:02 [Permalink]
|
Hahaha, I love Hovind's pleisiosaur riff. It's almost as good as his 'pertified' dog discovered half way up the inside of a hollow tree, proving that fossils could form in only a very few years, or even months.
For those who are not familiar with this blather, the 'pleisiosaur' was the rotting and rendolent carcass of a basking shark hauled in by a Japanese trawler. The petrified pooch was actually mummified, although the tree part is true enough -- how it got in there is unknown. This latter one is on display in one of those roadside museums (choke) that pepper the landscape and diminish property values, in South Georgia -- I forget exactly where and am too lazy to look something so silly up.
Sometimes, I think that Hovind was put upon this earth solely for mine very own amusment. He cracks me up!
But I still want his imbecil's head on a platter.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2004 : 08:22:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
verlch, I only defend evolutionary theory against the likes of you, the people who - for some unknown reason - have decided that evolutionary theory and God cannot co-exist (and thus that the theory "attacks" God), or that God did not create evolution. After all, evolution itself is fact. It happens, regardless of what you believe.
Depends of course on which god we're talking about. If one insists on believing in a god, then at least one could look at what things about that particular mythology is incompatible with current scientific wisdom. I mean, a god that created the universe and the earth in a matter of 6 days clearly is incompatible with what we know. This is why I agree with creationists that the god of the Bible don't seem to be able to co-exist with modern biology and cosmology etc. Of course, the god might exist, but certainly not exactly like in the Bible. So modern science do have implications on god, in that it puts limits to its abilities etc. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
| Edited by - Maverick on 10/09/2004 08:28:18 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2004 : 18:14:57 [Permalink]
|
Maverick, evolutionary theory speaks to no gods whatsoever. If someone thinks that evolution is incompatible with their ideas about God, it's their choice. It isn't something evolution forces on them, because the theories don't talk about their (or any other) God at all.
On the other hand, if there is a god, and if it chose to create the current biodiversity through evolution, then that was its choice. This doesn't "limit" that god in any way, as such a god could, tomorrow, decide to eliminate all colors but green for all I know. And, as some Bible-believing biologists have said, they study evolution to find out how God created life on this world. He could have created life on other worlds using completely different methods - we have no way of knowing right now.
No, it is those who choose to believe that God has only done the things listed in the Bible (and will only do the things in the Bible) who are limiting His abilities. But, they're scared to death of their God, anyway, so it's little wonder that they choose to make Him a pathetic robot to their collective will. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2004 : 22:02:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Maverick, evolutionary theory speaks to no gods whatsoever. If someone thinks that evolution is incompatible with their ideas about God, it's their choice. It isn't something evolution forces on them, because the theories don't talk about their (or any other) God at all.
On the other hand, if there is a god, and if it chose to create the current biodiversity through evolution, then that was its choice. This doesn't "limit" that god in any way, as such a god could, tomorrow, decide to eliminate all colors but green for all I know. And, as some Bible-believing biologists have said, they study evolution to find out how God created life on this world. He could have created life on other worlds using completely different methods - we have no way of knowing right now.
No, it is those who choose to believe that God has only done the things listed in the Bible (and will only do the things in the Bible) who are limiting His abilities. But, they're scared to death of their God, anyway, so it's little wonder that they choose to make Him a pathetic robot to their collective will.
What I'm trying to say is that modern science do limit the possible properties and actions of a god. If god did not create the universe, Earth and Homo Sapiens 6000 years ago, within 6 days, then that particular action was not carried out by god. So IF there is a god, then he created everything to look exactly as if he created it in a completely different way than what it looks like, or, he created it in a way more in line with what modern science has unveiled. If this god also did not drown the entire world, then... well then he didn't. I only mean that the more we know about the universe and its mechanisms, the less number of possible gods do we have. Obviously biological evolution is so wellsupported that it would require a lot to say that something entirely different is true. Therefor it seems like there has not been a god that created everything without using evolution. Therefor the christian god (and many others I imagine) is not The God, etc. But it seems like I'm missing something here. What is it? |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
| Edited by - Maverick on 10/09/2004 22:04:10 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2004 : 23:02:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Ever look at [pond water] with a microscope? It's an amazing, little world filled with complex creatures hurrying about their business, all in a tiny drop. I don't recall any religious text mentioning such a remarkable thing. It should have been mentioned because dysentary is a nasty, often fatal affilction that will evolve your intestines into something you'd wish you didn't have. In the Middle Ages, it was called the 'Bloody Flux.' God would surely want to protect the Anointed, wouldn't he? Could it be that the deity didn't know? Is he just a heavenly ignoramus after all?
Ah ha! One of my very arguments on "Why the Bible Is Just a Book". |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2004 : 23:36:22 [Permalink]
|
What it seems you're missing is the possibility that science is not a test for any god, and science cannot contradict "last Thursdayism," the idea that everything we see was created last Thursday, and our memories and knowledge are all implanted. Such things are not scientific concepts, and can neither be proved nor disproved through experimentation. Gods aren't limited by what science tells us. And the fundamental assumption of science is that there is an "objective reality" about which we can learn. But we cannot test that assumption, and it is possible that it is wrong.
Nothing we learn through science can ever penetrate the haze that an omnipotent god could put up. The number of possible gods is infinite, even after we subtract out all those gods which would have created a universe which appeared to be a different age than it seems to be.
And what science tells us today, some god or other could change tomorrow. Science doesn't tell us that the Sun will rise in the morning, only that it's very, very likely to do so. And science doesn't tell us that isochron dating is absolutely correct, only that if it's wrong by a factor of three million, it is always wrong by a factor of three million (and perhaps that God - and/or Satan - wants it that way). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2004 : 00:23:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What it seems you're missing is the possibility that science is not a test for any god,
Depends on the god in question, right? If the god is to some extent supposed to be part of this universe, then there could be ways to test it. If not test the existence of this god so at least some of the statements made by some religions.
quote:
and science cannot contradict "last Thursdayism," the idea that everything we see was created last Thursday, and our memories and knowledge are all implanted. Such things are not scientific concepts, and can neither be proved nor disproved through experimentation.
But I think that it can be tested. To say that the universe was created last thursday is a statement like saying it was created 6000 years ago or 13.7 billion years ago or perhaps 5 minutes ago. We can test it to some extent, and with some certainty say which one is closer to reality.
Obviously, as you say, the entire universe can be an illusion or false memories, but since I would like to think we're parts of the universe just as the planets and stars and amoebas, would that mean that we are also parts of that illusion? An illusion to whom? To us? Are we illusions fooled by another illusion?
We can only know what we can observe or conclude from observations, and we can test them to see how true they are. This may not tell us anything about who, if anyone, created the universe, but it does tell us something about the universe as we see it.
quote:
Gods aren't limited by what science tells us. And the fundamental assumption of science is that there is an "objective reality" about which we can learn. But we cannot test that assumption, and it is possible that it is wrong.
Nothing we learn through science can ever penetrate the haze that an omnipotent god could put up. The number of possible gods is infinite, even after we subtract out all those gods which would have created a universe which appeared to be a different age than it seems to be.
And what science tells us today, some god or other could change tomorrow. Science doesn't tell us that the Sun will rise in the morning, only that it's very, very likely to do so. And science doesn't tell us that isochron dating is absolutely correct, only that if it's wrong by a factor of three million, it is always wrong by a factor of three million (and perhaps that God - and/or Satan - wants it that way).
Ok, gods may not be limited by anything, but our ideas of how gods are, must be limited by scientific knowledge. It seems useless and irrelevant to say something that seems more unlikely than more likely alternatives. If the universe looks old and nothing so far has made us suspect it is only a fraction of that age, then I don't see the point in suddenly saying that the universe was created last thursday. It would clearly go against all observations. There is a possibility that it's true, but since nothing suggest that it is, it would be wrong to say that it is. Therefor, the idea of a god who created the universe last week would seem to be baseless.
Of course science has limits, but are there any better ways to study the nature? |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
