(April 2, 2017 at 8:38 am)Pandæmonium Wrote:

BINGO, humans do not understand that picture. That moth literally is mistaking that flame for the natural moonlight. That is what humans are doing when they project their own qualities on the world around them. That is where evolutionary gap filling comes from. It is nothing but a flawed perception.

---

(April 1, 2017 at 9:33 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 1, 2017 at 8:45 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I suppose you think trolling, and repeating the same foolish statements over and over again is noble?

Cyberman (formerly Stimbo) has informed me that by AF standards Brian is not trolling. So, he's really just being a prick.

Call me what you want, you still don't have a lick of evidence for your pet claim anymore than anyone else does for theirs. We do have evolution that tells us in a very scientific sense that life evolved to seek patterns, and because life didn't always have time to stop and think and our species didn't have our modern knowledge, our brains evolved long ago to gap fill. It is why if you want to believe that bowl of covered olives in the dark kitchen at a Halloween party are really eyeballs you will believe it. 

Instead of stupidly calling me a prick for no good reason, maybe YOU need to consider YOU got it wrong and consider  WE are here to help you. Yes, I am being blunt, consider it cold water on your face to wake you up.

(April 1, 2017 at 10:50 pm)masterofpuppets Wrote:

(April 1, 2017 at 9:55 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I've tried to get him back on topic... he just runs away from it....   I'm done with him any way.
Some may think that calling people names, and putting them down is winning,.., I don't feel that way

You're completely missing the point. You just want to keep on talking about how Brian is "trolling" and "not on topic" when it seems like YOU don't understand the point he's making. You're essentially committing an ad hominem fallacy.

Gods are just nonsense. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. It doesn't take more than a few minutes to see how deities were all just made up by humans during a time when they felt scared and lonely, or even worse, when they wanted to control other people. Either that or your specific god actually exists. Why are you correct when a Hindu is wrong? A Hindu can point out as many absurdities (probably more) in your religion than you can point out in his.

No, but his point is bad logic to begin with, and doesn't effect what was being discussed in the slightest.  No one is saying that this shows evidence for a specific god, but some general descriptions, that are normally attributed to something that we would call god.  Just because the gunpowder residue on the suspect's hands, don't show that he did shoot the victim, we don't throw that evidence out.  Or for a closer analogy, just because the evidence shows that it was murder, but doesn't point to a specific person, you don't ignore the evidence, and declare natural causes, as the reason for the death.  Similarly, I would laugh at a defense attorney, who gave the reason, that you reject all the other billions of people on the planet for committing the crime, I just ask you to reject one more in his client.  It doesn't follow.  

And yet again, if you look at a number of the fallacies, you will notice a pattern, that they do not effect the logic or reasons, given.   That is why they are fallacious.

(April 2, 2017 at 1:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 1, 2017 at 10:50 pm)masterofpuppets Wrote: You're completely missing the point. You just want to keep on talking about how Brian is "trolling" and "not on topic" when it seems like YOU don't understand the point he's making. You're essentially committing an ad hominem fallacy.

Gods are just nonsense. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. It doesn't take more than a few minutes to see how deities were all just made up by humans during a time when they felt scared and lonely, or even worse, when they wanted to control other people. Either that or your specific god actually exists. Why are you correct when a Hindu is wrong? A Hindu can point out as many absurdities (probably more) in your religion than you can point out in his.

No, but his point is bad logic to begin with, and doesn't effect what was being discussed in the slightest.  No one is saying that this shows evidence for a specific god, but some general descriptions, that are normally attributed to something that we would call god.  Just because the gunpowder residue on the suspect's hands, don't show that he did shoot the victim, we don't throw that evidence out.  Or for a closer analogy, just because the evidence shows that it was murder, but doesn't point to a specific person, you don't ignore the evidence, and declare natural causes, as the reason for the death.  Similarly, I would laugh at a defense attorney, who gave the reason, that you reject all the other billions of people on the planet for committing the crime, I just ask you to reject one more in his client.  It doesn't follow.  

And yet again, if you look at a number of the fallacies, you will notice a pattern, that they do not effect the logic or reasons, given.   That is why they are fallacious.

Here is where human narcissism kicks in. You know the song by Carly Simon "You probably think this song is about you".

My involvement started with SteveII, not you. That is when I first noticed the "fine tuning" argument, which I have seen for over a decade, not just here. You jumped in and kept responding to my responses. 

You need to stop taking this personally. This is not about you. Yes I am repeatedly responding to you, because you keep repeatedly responding. But this is not here for you. This is for EVERYONE who might read it, including Jews and Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists. It is also here for atheists so they can see OUR responses. When you have a good argument, you don't need to be afraid of it being public. 

Now in another thread on this website I am arguing with one of our resident MUSLIMS, Mystic Night. But you don't notice that do you? You think I am singling you out? No, I am responding to bad logic, just like I am responding to his bad logic.

And in that thread in the past 15 minutes we have REPEATEDLY exchanged responses.

Now again, when you say 

Quote:  No one is saying that this shows evidence for a specific god,

You missed where I said on a couple of occasions how long I have been debating religion, NOT JUST HERE, not just with you and not just on this website.

I have seen countless times someone come to a page, not just here, and try to sell a specific claim. When I say "so what everyone does that" they back peddle to " I am not arguing a specific god" then when they think we are not looking, they try to pull you back to their specific claim. 

Your problem is that you ran into someone with far more experience. Your other problem and I have challenged you to do it and you still refuse to, is don't just debate me on how science proves your claim, debate others with other religions and other god claims.

---

To RoadRunner and SteveII and Neo and Mystic and Atlas our two resident Muslims. Let me tell you a story.

Back in 01, back on a now defunct website Atheist Newtork, the very first atheist website I joined. I ran into a Christian. That was in my early days when I didn't know jack squat and had just got on line for the first time to seek out other atheists.

One day I ran into a Christian, did the circular "my book proves my book". Back then I would have been intimidated by that because I do not have the knowledge I do now. But I watched others say "so what everyone quotes their own book". I learned from other atheists that is what is called "circular reasoning". 

But, he had a trick up his sleeve "SCIENCE". When he couldn't simply quote the book to wow me, tried to point out verses in the bible that prove science matches Christianity. It was a long laundry list of verses. I literally spent 3 days comparing his claims to outside sources, and his argument evaporated. When I called him out on it he pulled the "I am not arguing a specific god"............Only to see him in that same thread go back to quoting the Bible. Not only in that thread, but in the others.

Since then I have seen that same "my book says circular reasoning" to "I am not arguing a specific god" only to go right back to their holy writing. But again, I have not just seen Christians do this, but Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists. I am on line almost every day and have been for 16 years. 

If anyone really thinks their tactic is unique, fine, don't just debate atheists, debate everyone.

(April 2, 2017 at 2:23 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

---

(April 2, 2017 at 1:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: No, but his point is bad logic to begin with, and doesn't effect what was being discussed in the slightest.  No one is saying that this shows evidence for a specific god, but some general descriptions, that are normally attributed to something that we would call god.  Just because the gunpowder residue on the suspect's hands, don't show that he did shoot the victim, we don't throw that evidence out.  Or for a closer analogy, just because the evidence shows that it was murder, but doesn't point to a specific person, you don't ignore the evidence, and declare natural causes, as the reason for the death.  Similarly, I would laugh at a defense attorney, who gave the reason, that you reject all the other billions of people on the planet for committing the crime, I just ask you to reject one more in his client.  It doesn't follow.  

And yet again, if you look at a number of the fallacies, you will notice a pattern, that they do not effect the logic or reasons, given.   That is why they are fallacious.

Here is where human narcissism kicks in. You know the song by Carly Simon "You probably think this song is about you".

My involvement started with SteveII, not you. That is when I first noticed the "fine tuning" argument, which I have seen for over a decade, not just here. You jumped in and kept responding to my responses. 

You need to stop taking this personally. This is not about you. Yes I am repeatedly responding to you, because you keep repeatedly responding. But this is not here for you. This is for EVERYONE who might read it, including Jews and Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists. It is also here for atheists so they can see OUR responses. When you have a good argument, you don't need to be afraid of it being public. 

Now in another thread on this website I am arguing with one of our resident MUSLIMS, Mystic Night. But you don't notice that do you? You think I am singling you out? No, I am responding to bad logic, just like I am responding to his bad logic.

And in that thread in the past 15 minutes we have REPEATEDLY exchanged responses.

Now again, when you say 

Quote:  No one is saying that this shows evidence for a specific god,

---

You missed where I said on a couple of occasions how long I have been debating religion, NOT JUST HERE, not just with you and not just on this website.

I have seen countless times someone come to a page, not just here, and try to sell a specific claim. When I say "so what everyone does that" they back peddle to " I am not arguing a specific god" then when they think we are not looking, they try to pull you back to their specific claim. 

I'm discussing ideas.... you can hide behind imagined tactics that you think you see; as a way to divert the discussion, but I'm not buying it.   The one thing I never seen on any of your lists, that you often repeated, is materialism.   That is because it doesn't work.  
Perhaps you see "back peddling", because you where making wrong assumptions to begin with.   If you where following the discussion and understanding it, I don't think that there was any back peddling.  I'm not really here to be selling anything.... I'm here for discussion, and to here what you have to say.   So far, I think that most of what you are responding to, is only in your head.

(April 2, 2017 at 4:59 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 2, 2017 at 2:23 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

---

Here is where human narcissism kicks in. You know the song by Carly Simon "You probably think this song is about you".

My involvement started with SteveII, not you. That is when I first noticed the "fine tuning" argument, which I have seen for over a decade, not just here. You jumped in and kept responding to my responses. 

You need to stop taking this personally. This is not about you. Yes I am repeatedly responding to you, because you keep repeatedly responding. But this is not here for you. This is for EVERYONE who might read it, including Jews and Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists. It is also here for atheists so they can see OUR responses. When you have a good argument, you don't need to be afraid of it being public. 

Now in another thread on this website I am arguing with one of our resident MUSLIMS, Mystic Night. But you don't notice that do you? You think I am singling you out? No, I am responding to bad logic, just like I am responding to his bad logic.

And in that thread in the past 15 minutes we have REPEATEDLY exchanged responses.

Now again, when you say 

---

You missed where I said on a couple of occasions how long I have been debating religion, NOT JUST HERE, not just with you and not just on this website.

I have seen countless times someone come to a page, not just here, and try to sell a specific claim. When I say "so what everyone does that" they back peddle to " I am not arguing a specific god" then when they think we are not looking, they try to pull you back to their specific claim. 

I'm discussing ideas.... you can hide behind imagined tactics that you think you see; as a way to divert the discussion, but I'm not buying it.   The one thing I never seen on any of your lists, that you often repeated, is materialism.   That is because it doesn't work.  
Perhaps you see "back peddling", because you where making wrong assumptions to begin with.   If you where following the discussion and understanding it, I don't think that there was any back peddling.  I'm not really here to be selling anything.... I'm here for discussion, and to here what you have to say.   So far, I think that most of what you are responding to, is only in your head.

 
Ok fine, I am seeing "imagined tactics". Then you should have absolutely no problem debating Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists. We all know you magically got it right. 

How about you try that first before you falsely accuse me. I do warn you though, if you are brave enough to do that, it will take time. It took me years to see the same patterns. And you still refuse to google "Muslim science" "Jewish science" "Hindu science" "Buddhist science".

You don't want to compare yourself to others just like they don't want to compare themselves to you. Stay in your echo chamber.

I'm here to discuss; if you don't want to fine.... but don't de-rail the conversation. And please stop assuming, what you know nothing about.... and making up my position for me. And you talk about an echo chamber? I'm here to look at your ideas and evaluate them. So far I find them wanting!

(April 2, 2017 at 5:54 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I'm here to discuss;  if you don't want to fine.... but don't de-rail the conversation.   And please stop assuming, what you know nothing about....  and making up my position for me.   And you talk about an echo chamber?   I'm here to look at your ideas and evaluate them.   So far I find them wanting!

I could care less if you want to "discuss" if you thought this was merely a place where we roll over, then you picked the wrong place.

I am not assuming. I am betting. I bet that you do have a specific club and a specific book. 

I bet if we put you on a polygraph you would be lying saying you are not advocating a specific book or specific God.

Now again, I am willing to admit when I am wrong. But again, been at this for 16 years. So to everyone reading this, the next time he posts ANYWHERE on this website, about his particular book, and I bet he will, remind him of what you read in this post.

(April 2, 2017 at 6:13 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(April 2, 2017 at 5:54 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I'm here to discuss;  if you don't want to fine.... but don't de-rail the conversation.   And please stop assuming, what you know nothing about....  and making up my position for me.   And you talk about an echo chamber?   I'm here to look at your ideas and evaluate them.   So far I find them wanting!

I could care less if you want to "discuss" if you thought this was merely a place where we roll over, then you picked the wrong place.

I am not assuming. I am betting. I bet that you do have a specific club and a specific book. 

I bet if we put you on a polygraph you would be lying saying you are not advocating a specific book or specific God.

Now again, I am willing to admit when I am wrong. But again, been at this for 16 years. So to everyone reading this, the next time he posts ANYWHERE on this website, about his particular book, and I bet he will, remind him of what you read in this post.

In these arguments... no I am not advancing a specific book or tradition. Mostly because it doesn't follow from the argument.   That however does not mean, that apart from that, I do not have any other connected beliefs, or reasons for them. 

Your not going to manipulate me into your straw man.... Since you want to argue for the both of us however; I'm done.

(April 2, 2017 at 7:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 2, 2017 at 6:13 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I could care less if you want to "discuss" if you thought this was merely a place where we roll over, then you picked the wrong place.

I am not assuming. I am betting. I bet that you do have a specific club and a specific book. 

I bet if we put you on a polygraph you would be lying saying you are not advocating a specific book or specific God.

Now again, I am willing to admit when I am wrong. But again, been at this for 16 years. So to everyone reading this, the next time he posts ANYWHERE on this website, about his particular book, and I bet he will, remind him of what you read in this post.

In these arguments... no I am not advancing a specific book or tradition. Mostly because it doesn't follow from the argument.   That however does not mean, that apart from that, I do not have any other connected beliefs, or reasons for them. 

Your not going to manipulate me into your straw man.... Since you want to argue for the both of us however; I'm done.That however does not mean, that apart from that, I do not have any other connected beliefs, or reasons for them.  

So you do admit to having a pet claim? 

Quote:That however does not mean, that apart from that, I do not have any other connected beliefs, or reasons for them.  

Of course you do have a specific claim, thank you for proving my point. So again, "I am not trying to prove as specific god" is bullshit by proxy of you right now admitting YOU DO have a bias. 

There is no "apart from that". 

Stop playing word games with me. Admit you have a specific God and a specific book.

---

(April 2, 2017 at 7:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 2, 2017 at 6:13 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I could care less if you want to "discuss" if you thought this was merely a place where we roll over, then you picked the wrong place.

I am not assuming. I am betting. I bet that you do have a specific club and a specific book. 

I bet if we put you on a polygraph you would be lying saying you are not advocating a specific book or specific God.

Now again, I am willing to admit when I am wrong. But again, been at this for 16 years. So to everyone reading this, the next time he posts ANYWHERE on this website, about his particular book, and I bet he will, remind him of what you read in this post.

In these arguments... no I am not advancing a specific book or tradition. Mostly because it doesn't follow from the argument.   That however does not mean, that apart from that, I do not have any other connected beliefs, or reasons for them. 

Your not going to manipulate me into your straw man.... Since you want to argue for the both of us however; I'm done.

Of course you are done. If you had anything valid you wouldn't have to simply "discuss", you'd have a patent and a Nobel Prize by now and the ability to quote independent peer reviewed journals.

Something has been made of what 'all the major religions' agree on regarding the origin of the universe. Of course, limiting it to the major religions as though it's a popularity contest doesn't sound like a sound categorization, but it conveniently excludes most of the cosmologies that don't involve a Creator. Except one. Buddhism is a major religion. The Buddha is supposed to have remained silent regarding 14 questions, which he regarded as traps of pointless speculation which would lead to irrational dogma. In any case, Buddhist temporal cosmology is complex, but doesn't involve creation of the universe by a deity, the universe is, however it came about, and it may be an eternal cycle.