|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 02/18/2006 : 03:35:02 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: But an atheist, according to the dictionary, is not one who has "a lack of belief" that God exists, but rather one who "denies" that God exists.
The dictionary definition that you posted said “disbelieves” OR “denies”. Having a “lack of belief” is the same as “disbelief”.
Bill wrote: When I considered all the evidence for God, and then pondered on it, I have concluded that based on the evidence I would put my faith in God.
You have presented no evidence here. Only philosophy.
Bill wrote: You have placed your faith in atheism, while I have placed mine in creationism.
Your bit about faith in airplanes was, if I may be frank, bullshit. Faith has more than one subtle definition, and the religious idea of faith is not the same as empirically based faith (such as my faith that my chair will not break when I sit in it, or my faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.)
In the religious sense, atheists do not have faith in a materialistic universe.
Bill wrote: The atheist can not prove that God does not exist.
See, this is where that polka dot elephant comes back. We are not making a claim of anything that can't be supported by empirical evidence. You are.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 07:54:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Always give attribution, Bill. The moderators here are are pretty much live and let live, and pass that bottle my way, but they are deadly serious about that.
And rightly so; nobody wants to get into some dumb copyright hassle.
OK, I see your point. I keep forgeting that I can just setup a link to the information I wish to share and then problem solved. Thanks for the patince. For the 2nd time now, it will not happen again. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 15:15:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
*drum roll* And now, for the…um 5th time: EVERYTHING HAPPENING IN THE WORLD – INCLUDING GAY COUPLES RAISING KIDS – IS THE RESULT OF NATURAL SELECTION.
(bill) Why does this only happen to the human animal species?
It doesn't. Have a peek here...
http://www.cotswoldwildlifepark.co.uk/animals/births.htm
From Cotswold Wild Life Park: "Flamingos can be quite argumentative whilst nesting, their maturnal instincts are so strong that they will even steal eggs and chicks from other nesting pairs. This year two young males have stolen an egg from another pair, the egg-nappers have teamed up and are now incubating the egg. Don't worry too much about mum and dad though, they have laid a second egg and I am sure they will take better care of it this time around!"
This article wasn't the one I was looking for when I googled... There are other examples, where at least one other has been discussed on SFN. Didn't find that article though, and the SFN search page returns SQL-error.
quote:
What other social mammal procreates through the heterosexual relations with two homosexual partners standing by, waiting to take away the child to a completely separate dwelling, to raise the child as if it were their own in a male/male/child format, rather then the male/female/child format, which takes place naturally, and requires no foreign intrusion or human social engineering?...
Bill, this is so inane it's unbelievable. You are insulting the intelligence of every single reader of this forum. And you obviously wouldn't recognise a straw-man if someone nailed it onto a cross in your backyard and set it on fire.
You are trying to compare some very few steady homosexual pair wanting to adopt a child to a scenario where every single heterosexual pair would get a baby for the sole purpose to give it away to a waiting homosexual couple. While there are instances where this have happened (it did in a neighbouring town to where I live) with a twist, but that's a different story. Open a new thread and I'll tell you about it.
Edited to add: since there are so many children available for adoption, your scenario is very unlikely. (And could be avoided by legislation, if you set your mind to it.)
Bill, if you want to play who-can-build-the-biggest-straw-man I can happily oblige (though I bet other members can build better ones):
Bill thinks that heterosexual couples only should make and rear children because God designed humans this way. Mom should change it's diapers while dad is out knocking dinosaurs in the head with a wooden club to bring home the meat. And consequently, since artificial insemination is not natural, Bill and God obviously wants all fertility clinics closed. Couples who can't have children the natural way shouldn't have any, otherwise nature and God would have provided them...
Though Bill won't say it outright, orphans should be left out in the woods to die because no way in hell should the child have to suffer being raised by a homosexual couple who so dearly want to spread their lifestyle. It's only natural that cubs without living parents to care for it dies.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/18/2006 15:42:31 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 15:45:17 [Permalink]
|
The problem is Bill thinks in straw men.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 16:01:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
The problem is Bill thinks in straw men.
Yes. And every time he writes "marriage is between man and women" it cracks me up, because he doesn't realise he's saying polygamy. Which by the way is ok by me.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/18/2006 16:02:24 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 08:15:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Moderator: Quoted copyrighted material deleted. See original for link to text.
 Did it again. Sheesh.
Thanks for your prompt response.
I find these arguments to be unconvincing. Mostly they seem like arguments from lack of imagination: "I can't imagine how such complicated things came to be", so it must be God. I find that _really_ unconvincing.
As far as life being fine-tuned, I dont find it surprising that life that evolved on Earth would be fine-tuned for the conditions on earth. I'd expect it. That it would not exist under different conditions is not surprising. (I don't understand the point about the moon. If it were further away, or closer, the tides would just be smaller or greater)
Whats the point of M., Rushmore? That humans are good at recognizing things created by humans? OK. I'm not sure what that says about something God would design, or how to recognize it.
If the new species that "suddenly appear" are a whole lot like the ones that came before, then I think that supports evolution. What does evolution have to so with the existance of God?
I appreciate the responce.
Thanks for your prompt response.
I find these arguments to be unconvincing. Mostly they seem like arguments from lack of imagination: "I can't imagine how such complicated things came to be", so it must be God. I find that _really_ unconvincing.
(bill) Actually leo, "God did it", is a well thought out and logical position to hold, in light of reality. Through the theory of cause and effect we can conclude that the cause, of the entire physical universe, is a pretty powerful creative agent as the cause of an effect is equal to, or greater then, the effect we see. To realize that the known universe and beyond, at one time did not exist and now it does, just gives us a little snippet to the scope of the power we are talking about here. What could have the ability to bring into existence the entire universe and beyond, which did not exist before?
Creationist.: Well an infinitely powerful God of coarse....
Atheist: That is lame, and not very well thought out either.
Creationist: What say you Mr./Mrs./Ms. Atheist?
Atheist: Well after centuries of thought and time to hone our position on the origin of physical matter, we have concluded that our official position will be, "We have no $#@%^$# idea how that happened? But we know $%#^ well and straight that it was not no god!"
Creationist: Your absolutely sure of this?
Atheist: 100 %
The "God did it" is a logical position to hold on the origin of life as well.
What could have had the power and knowledge to not only bring physical matter into existence when it did not exist before, but also from this physical matter create living beings, and give them the breath of life, where life never existed before?
Creationist: Well an infinitely powerful God, who can bring into existence that which did exist before, he could do it. He could take the PM , which he already created, and from that give material objects the breath of life where no life had existed before.
Atheist: That is lame, and not very well thought out either...
Creationist: What say you?
Atheist: Well after centuries of thought and time to hone our position on how life through PM life can begin to exist when no life existed before we have concluded that "we have no $%#@$#% idea how that $#%^ happens? But we know for damn sure it ain't no god though, especially that xitian god!"
Creationist: Your sure about this?
Atheist: Yep....
"God did it" is also very thought out and fits logically when considering the vast display of design we see in our world from all the eco systems to the amazing abilities of vision systems, breathing systems, reproduction systems in all living animals etc... etc... Our world is a complex system living in concert with a complex system, living in concert with a complex system etc... etc... etc...
Creationist: Not only was the infinitely powerful God responsible for bringing universes into existence when universes did not exist before, and bringing life into existence where life did not exist before, but he also is the one who is responsible for the vast array of life that we find...
Atheist: That is lame, and not very well thought out either...
Creationist: What say you?
Atheist: We say that blind random chance is responsible for the array of life. We don't all agree on how chance did it, but we do agree it was chance and no $#%^*#@ way was it the xiantions lame god, no way?
Creationist: So on the subject of origins for PM and life itself the atheist has no idea how this could happen, without a infinite God being involved, but their 100% absolute that is was no god that did do it?
Atheist: yep.....
Creationist: As far as the wide array of species and systems we see in our world?...
Atheist: Blind luck and chance.....
Creationist: And you consider your atheism well thought out using imagination?
Atheist: Yes of coarse, and that anyone who does not is a dumbass...
Creationist: Ok???
As far as life being fine-tuned, I dont find it surprising that life that evolved on Earth would be fine-tuned for the conditions on earth. I'd expect it. That it would not exist under different conditions is not surprising.
(bill)Only from an infinite creator would I expect design and fine tuned precision. One who can bring PM and life into existence where it did not exist before. Atheists, in all their glory, have no idea how pm and life can begin to exist? And they subscribe obvious design to blind random chance rather then concede the obvious. They would rather stick their head in the sand and cling to their we don' know, we don't know and blind random chance explanation for the existence of the universe then to even entertain the idea that infinite God could be the first cause. They cling to, and prop up, atheism because that is all they have. The converse is not even an option to consider. If they were to acknowledge a creator, or even the possibility, they realize this would mean that they are subject to the creator. They realize that a created being would be subject to the creative being. In all their humanist glory, this burns them to no end. No way will they be subject to anything. Without a god, they can justify any behavior they want to. With God their might be a standard for everyone on what is right and what is wrong. This concept send chills down the atheist's spin and is why they continue in the search to justify their atheism, at any cost, and the converse is not even an option that can be considered.
Whats the point of M., Rushmore?
(bill) To honor four past presidents...
That humans are good at recognizing things created by humans?
(bill) That humans are good at recognizing things created, period.
OK. I'm not sure what that says about something God would design, or how to recognize it.
(bill) Well we can look at the design of the eye of many different creators and see that God is complex designer. We recognize it because it is here.
The atheist will brush off the fact they have no idea how life, or PM for that matter, arose from nothing. After blowing off the whole origin o |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 08:57:31 [Permalink]
|
"God did it" is not an argument simply because it is impossible to produce emperiacl evidence in support the existance of such a creature. It can be neither refuted nor proven by any scientific method.
The eye is certainly not too complex to have evolved. I might add that it seems strange that the protion of the brain that process' images is in the rear, so those images have farther to travel than necessary. Further, our eyes are not of optimal design (I'll have to look up a reference on that, but am a little rushed at the moment). If some deity or other is responsible, it needs to take an engineering course.
Which brings us to the degenerative eyes of many cave creatures. They have eyes, but those eyes don't work. This clearly demonstrates evolution in that if a part goes unused, it will, over the generations, gradually be lost. The tiny and useless second lung in serpents and the reminants of a pelvic girdle in whales are other, good examples.
"God" can not be tested nor even observed, and therefore is not worthy of scientific consideration.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 09:43:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
"God did it" is not an argument simply because it is impossible to produce emperiacl evidence in support the existance of such a creature. It can be neither refuted nor proven by any scientific method.
The eye is certainly not too complex to have evolved. I might add that it seems strange that the protion of the brain that process' images is in the rear, so those images have farther to travel than necessary. Further, our eyes are not of optimal design (I'll have to look up a reference on that, but am a little rushed at the moment). If some deity or other is responsible, it needs to take an engineering course.
Which brings us to the degenerative eyes of many cave creatures. They have eyes, but those eyes don't work. This clearly demonstrates evolution in that if a part goes unused, it will, over the generations, gradually be lost. The tiny and useless second lung in serpents and the reminants of a pelvic girdle in whales are other, good examples.
"God" can not be tested nor even observed, and therefore is not worthy of scientific consideration.
"God did it" is not an argument simply because it is impossible to produce emperiacl evidence in support the existance of such a creature. It can be neither refuted nor proven by any scientific method.
(bill) So if the atheist has no idea at all on the origins of life, or PM for that fact, how can they insist that it was not a god? And don't bother with the pink little elephants as no one is ascribing the existence of pink elephants, or implying that they could have created the universe. I am asking about the plausibility that a creative agent exists, and the atheists attempt to insist that is was not God if they, by their own admission, do not know who or what was responsible for the reality we have before us? How do they know for a fact then that is was not a transcending agent? (insert pink elephants smoke and mirrors here)
The eye is certainly not too complex to have evolved <http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html>. I might add that it seems strange that the protion of the brain that process' images is in the rear, so those images have farther to travel than necessary. Further, our eyes are not of optimal design (I'll have to look up a reference on that, but am a little rushed at the moment). If some deity or other is responsible, it needs to take an engineering course.
(Bill) Funny, for something quite so simple and lacking of any engineering, the atheistic-humanist, in all of their glory, have yet been able to explain how PM exists when it did not exist before, how life begins to exist where it did not exist, and to take these two and formulate a species capable of great acts of sight, such as eagles or hawks. Even in all their glory they can't even explain the reality we see in front of us, let alone duplicate it. Yet, in all their glory, they feel qualified to criticize the one who can and did *sigh*....
Which brings us to the degenerative eyes of many cave creatures. They have eyes, but those eyes don't work. This clearly demonstrates evolution in that if a part goes unused, it will, over the generations, gradually be lost. The tiny and useless second lung in serpents and the reminants of a pelvic girdle in whales are other, good examples.
(Bill) Funny, for something quite so simple and lacking of any engineering, the atheistic-humanist, in all of their glory, have yet been able to explain how PM exists when it did not exist before, how life begins to exist where it did not exist, and to take these two and formulate a species capable of great acts of sight, such as eagles or hawks. Even in all their glory they can't even explain the reality we see in front of us, let alone duplicate it. Yet, in all their glory, they feel qualified to criticize the one who can and did *sigh*....
"God" can not be tested nor even observed, and therefore is not worthy of scientific consideration.
(bill) So unless someone can bottle up God and place him in a jar right in front of you, you will reject the very notion of God and stick with your default answer, we don't know, we don't know and blind random chance as your worldview foundation and why you hold to it? Suit yourself...
Do have any hypothiss at all to the orgin of life, apart from God? Physical matter? Anything?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 10:06:24 [Permalink]
|
| I may respond to this but first, what the hell is PM? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 10:39:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
I may respond to this but first, what the hell is PM?
PM= Physical Matter |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 11:44:44 [Permalink]
|
Bill's fictional character Atheist is someone who is not representative of the majority of atheists I've ever met. My conclusion is that Bill's caricature athesit is just that: a purely fictional product of his religiously warped imagination.
Whatever the reason for Bill to post his Creationist-Atheist exchange, I find it unconvincing, unfactual, and not even entertaining. Nothing that gives any merit what so ever to the point he was trying to make.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 12:23:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Bill's fictional character Atheist is someone who is not representative of the majority of atheists I've ever met. My conclusion is that Bill's caricature athesit is just that: a purely fictional product of his religiously warped imagination.
Whatever the reason for Bill to post his Creationist-Atheist exchange, I find it unconvincing, unfactual, and not even entertaining. Nothing that gives any merit what so ever to the point he was trying to make.
Bill's fictional character Atheist is someone who is not representative of the majority of atheists I've ever met. My conclusion is that Bill's caricature athesit is just that: a purely fictional product of his religiously warped imagination.
(bill) And so Dr, in all your glory, do the atheist you run with have more to offer then the standard default answer, "we don't know" or "god did not do it" when discussing the origin of life, or even PM (physical matter) for that fact? If so I would really enjoy you sharing it with us. After centuries of thought on the matter, and all the time they have had to hone their findings don't you find "we don't have any #$@$#$* idea" to be rather lame when they chide the creationist as unimaginative when they deduce that "god did it"?????? Say yes.....
Bill: God did it....
Dr's atheistic friends who don't represent mainstream atheism: How lame, not much thought either *yawn*......
Bill: What do you got?
Doc's atheistic friends: We don't have a single idea on how it all happened. We do know, however, that it was not god!
Bill: Your sure?
Doc's friends: Yep.....
Whatever the reason for Bill to post his Creationist-Atheist exchange, I find it unconvincing, unfactual, and not even entertaining. Nothing that gives any merit what so ever to the point he was trying to make.
(bill) You mean the point I make where the Atheist chides the creationist with the "god did it is lame" lecture and the creationist is dismissed as having a simpletons viewpoint and lacking imagination only for the atheist to respond with "I don't have a clue and I don't have a clue" when he is presented with the very same question? That point doc...
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 12:48:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
"God did it" is not an argument simply because it is impossible to produce emperiacl evidence in support the existance of such a creature. It can be neither refuted nor proven by any scientific method.
The eye is certainly not too complex to have evolved. I might add that it seems strange that the protion of the brain that process' images is in the rear, so those images have farther to travel than necessary. Further, our eyes are not of optimal design (I'll have to look up a reference on that, but am a little rushed at the moment). If some deity or other is responsible, it needs to take an engineering course.
Which brings us to the degenerative eyes of many cave creatures. They have eyes, but those eyes don't work. This clearly demonstrates evolution in that if a part goes unused, it will, over the generations, gradually be lost. The tiny and useless second lung in serpents and the reminants of a pelvic girdle in whales are other, good examples.
"God" can not be tested nor even observed, and therefore is not worthy of scientific consideration.
Do have any hypothiss at all, apart from God, to the orgin of life? Physical matter? Anything please share?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 12:51:05 [Permalink]
|
Though there are theories and research ongoing, the correct answer is "We don't know yet". And, for the nth time, this does not mean that "god didn't do it".
But the simple truth is the you don't know either, and aren't intellectually honest enough to admit it. You can say "I have faith that god did it", but don't dare submit this as a factual statement because it isn't.
I find it refreshing for someone to honestly answer "I don't know" instead of trying to bullshit an answer. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/20/2006 12:52:01 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 13:35:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Though there are theories and research ongoing, the correct answer is "We don't know yet". And, for the nth time, this does not mean that "god didn't do it".
But the simple truth is the you don't know either, and aren't intellectually honest enough to admit it. You can say "I have faith that god did it", but don't dare submit this as a factual statement because it isn't.
I find it refreshing for someone to honestly answer "I don't know" instead of trying to bullshit an answer.
Exactly.
Bill, you seem so sure of this God thingy that you ought to be able to come up with at least a recent photograph.
Evolution is anything but random. It is the force that adapts species to an ever-changing environment and ecology. Species fail when the process can't keep up with radical change. Thus, there are few megafauna and no dinosaurs left, and more's the pity. In their places, there are smaller mammals and birds. And ourselves.
Evolution of the eye.
|
"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!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
