(August 1, 2013 at 10:22 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: You can only argue that wheels are round for so long...ugh.

In my discussions with Creationists I'm often left feeling this same way. They simply refuse to accept anything that doesn't backup their own position. This is one of the reasons I started realize that Organized religion is BS.

In Science, evidence is used to rule out illogical or false conclusions. In religion conclusions are to be adhered to, no matter what.

(August 1, 2013 at 3:55 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It’s not, but we’re not talking about merely assuming the Bible is false; we’re talking about using arguments that rely upon the assumption that the Bible is false in order to argue that the Bible is false, which IS begging the question.

We are just gonna have to agree to disagree here Stat. Your take is that everything should be assumed to be true until proven false, and I think that one must not accept something as true until proven.

If it wasn't breeded into you at a younger age, I assume, that at some point you accepted that the bible was true. That was an assumption on your part. Now you seem to think that this assumption stands on equal footing as the default one shared by one that is not convinced. You don't seem to have any idea as to whether you are thinking forward or backwards at this point. Your logic is so wildly absurd that even you would reject it if it were offered to support a Hindu-Bible. Yet, you continue to say things like this...Do you ever go back and read some of the things you write? Take out "Bible" in your rebuttals and input "The Lord of The Rings" ..It looks something like this:

(August 1, 2013 at 3:55 pm)Statler Waldorf in a Simulation Wrote: It’s not, but we’re not talking about merely assuming The Lord of the Rings is false; we’re talking about using arguments that rely upon the assumption that The Lord of the Rings is false in order to argue that the The Lord of The Rings is false, which IS begging the question.

I know you wouldn't accept this as a sensical statement, yet you say things like this all the time. You sound a lil crazy sir.

(August 1, 2013 at 3:55 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: There, one sentence.

indeed

(July 30, 2013 at 7:40 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: God has the prerogative to destroy His creation;

Wow....Statler are you saying no matter the reason god can do anything he wants to us because he created us?????


.

---

(August 1, 2013 at 10:36 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: What?!!! No!! I refuse to believe that, Waldorf is the chosen one. The trusted scribe of the elders. Surely if there were ever a truth-speaker, it is he.

BLASPHEMER.....Drich is the chosen one


.

In answer to the OP, to make it a compelling story.

(August 1, 2013 at 8:14 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: It doesn't? "Sir, we have no reason to believe he murdered the subject, but we have no reason to doubt that he didn't either! Let's go with the latter, because I say so! All in favor say 'Yea'!" This is you, SW.

I see you still do not understand how all of this works, you’ll get there eventually. You claimed the flood account was impossible; I’ve refuted that claim, that’s all I intended to do. You’ve now tried to shift the goalposts; I am too savvy for that my friend.

Quote: And hypothesizing how abiogensis naturally occurred is much more thought-provoking than saying "Goddidit", every time, hands down.

Sounds like your opinion to me.

Quote: if you think they're wasting their time on these theories, then you need to give them a better one. But wait...you just say "Goddidit", and that's an argument from ignorance. Well excuse these scientists for trying their best not to be ignorant like the fools who spend 15 seconds to hypothesize a God instead. If you have proof that God exists, then perhaps you might have something worth bringing to the table, otherwise, you are wasting your breath on these men.

Concluding that God did something is not an argument from ignorance (asserting there must be a natural explanation for the origin of life that we just have not found yet is however); it’s an inference to the best explanation. Life cannot naturally come from non-life, that’s a basic law of biology.

Quote:How do you know there was an ark? You don't know that any more than I know there was a primordial soup, and but I don't need to hypothesize a God in order to come up with conditions for the soup. This god is carrying more baggage than the original spark of life! If you want to pin me with special pleading, you should stop doing it yourself, unless you're just fine proceeding in this manner. And if that's the case, then blaming me for something you yourself do is being hypocritical. Are you okay with being a hypocrite?

I am not engaging in special pleading, if scripture revealed to us that there was a primordial soup then I’d know there was one; however it reveals no such thing. It does reveal that there was an ark though.

Quote: As for the flood originating with Noah, you have no proof. Stop it.

Sure I do.

Quote: No one should ever reason from a story book, even if it claims to be real. Does that clarify my position any?

Sure, and I agree with it, however I am not reasoning from a story book, I am reasoning from the infallible revealed word of God. All other claims conform to its authority.

Quote: Hey, you said it, not me. That jump in logic was all you.

No, I believe Cody’s account is accurate; you’re the one asserting it was some sort of fabrication by Cody, without any evidence to support that position.

Quote: What, Smith wasn't a real person that made up fantastic stories? What the fuck am I taking on faith, exactly? If you try to pin that rot on me, then you'd better think about it real hard before you do.

Where did I say Smith wasn’t a real person? I said he wasn’t an accepted historical reference like Cody; true statement. What do you accept upon faith?...

- Your senses are generally reliable and accurately perceive reality
- You can trust your ability to reason
- Your memories accurately depict the past
- Future natural laws will resemble past natural laws

You cannot prove any of these things are true and yet you believe them, which means you’re accepting them upon faith. Without this faith commitment you’d be able to know nothing, so your entire view of reality is grounded in faith. Faith is the foundation for all reason.

Quote: I'm not going to explain away any of that. It's your claim, so it's your belief. I haven't accepted it as a belief, so the burden of proof is all on you to change my mind. You sure do try hard to shirk your responsibilities to your outrageous claims.

So are you conceding that there is evidence that supports the flood account that you cannot explain? I’ll take that concession.

Quote:Once again, I can't help voluntary ignorance. I'm not discussing these things with you.

This approach is almost always a sign that you cannot refute my position; demonstrate to me this isn’t the case here.

Quote:Oh, so attaching the word "creature" to someone is empirical evidence that such a thing has a creator, much like offspring has parents?

I never said it was; I was just pointing out the irony of you using that term. Life cannot naturally arise from non-life- we know this to be true; so life must have a supernatural creator.

Quote: Right, let's just make up insane theories about global floods and forget how that all affects the ecosystem. I'm no Marine Biologist, but it doesn't exactly take one to postulate that most everything, if not all things, would be dead in the water after such a catastrophe. So I assume you must think they had help from God to survive such an event, or their habitat needs were altered for this one time. Look, I understand that you think your God can do all things, but for those of us who don't believe in your god, we're going to keep to what seems more plausible.

There are marine biologists who believe in the global flood, so that point was off the mark. Yes, many animals would have died during the flood, and that’s sort of the point of the whole thing. Whether you believe in the omnipotence of God is irrelevant. Plausibility? Aren’t you the guy who entertains the statistical impossibility known as abiogenesis?

Quote:Special pleading then. Great. "I don't know how they did it, but it must have happened!" Sorry...no, that's an argument from ignorance. Or was it both?

You’re shifting the goalposts yet again; you claimed the flood account was impossible. In order to refute that claim I merely have to propose ways in which it is possible; I did that, therefore your claim has been refuted. Do you know how life arose from non-life by the way? Or do you merely know it must have happened? Keep in mind, you referenced nearly a dozen different theories without telling me which one actually happened. I am allowed to play by the same rules as you play by.

Quote:Right, right. For all the trillions of people that have walked the earth, only the couple dozen or so that you listed, not including those referenced in the Holy Babble, were documented as living beyond 200 and 300 years of age. How is that evidence that ALL of us should be living longer like them?

What? Where did I say that all of us should be living long lives like they did? Cultures agree; people used to live longer than they do today. I realize that makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective, but that just means perhaps it’s time to alter your perspective. As a side note, the assertion that there have been trillions of people on Earth is an absurd claim; people bury their dead and there’s no where near that many bodies buried.

Quote: No...that's not scientific. It's an idea based on how you think the aging process works.

No, it’s an idea based upon our scientific understanding of how the aging process works.

Quote: Assuming Noah was real, of course. However, I don't tell stories. Scientists can prove that Amino acids are real and that they can naturally form when under certain conditions. But, please, tell me more of these Fairy Tales that you are so taken with.

Science doesn’t deal with proof. Additionally, scientists cannot demonstrate that these amino acids piggy backed on crystals on a beach 4.5 billion years ago, and yet you seem to have no issue with such stories. It’s interesting you feel the need to apply two different sets of rules.

Quote: I own that book, FYI. So you compare something he wrote as a side-hobby to being of equal importance to his actual work? Who's making fallacious analogies now?

Where did I make that comparison? I was just making sure we were talking about the same guy.

Quote: Oh, forgive me for my ignorance, I suppose I forgot that part.

Forgiven.

Quote: So then what would have happened if the Angel hadn't stopped him?

…but the angel did stop him, so that’s a meaningless hypothetical.

Quote: This story, right here, is proof enough to show that your God's morals are fucked up.

According to whom? You?

Quote: The sinful nature God gave them. I can do this all day.

No, the sinful nature that was a result of Adam’s fall. I can too.

Quote: We do! You believe in fore-ordination, and I sure as fuck don't.

…because you were fore-ordained not to.

Quote: Oh, I see what you did there. You equated "vile things" to natural tendencies. Stop it.

So murder, cannibalism, infanticide, and rape are not vile since they are natural?

Quote: Special logic is a bitch.

I wouldn’t know, I prefer deduction.

Quote: I can fathom nothing. That immaterial enough for you? Why is everything so black and white with you?

I believe in the existence of truth; as do you.

Quote: It's not going to appeal to supernatural claims, meaning, it will never fill in the gaps with "Goddidit". You can do that all you want, but it will only stunt your intellectual growth.

…so the supernatural does not exist because there’s no evidence to suggest that it does and no evidence can have a supernatural explanation because the supernatural does not exist because there’s no evidence to suggest that it does because no evidence can have a supernatural explanation because the supernatural does not exist because there’s no evidence to suggest that it does and no evidence can have a supernatural explanation because the supernatural does not exist because there’s no evidence to suggest that it does because no evidence can have a supernatural explanation because the supernatural does not exist because there’s no evidence to suggest that it does and no evidence can have a supernatural explanation because the supernatural does not exist because there’s no evidence to suggest that it does because no evidence can have a supernatural explanation because the supernatural does not exist…..

Around and around we go!

Quote: How is the idea of one eternal god not also begging the question? Mormonism is wrong not because of its doctrines, but because it's made up!

No, I know that Mormonism is a fabrication because it’s internally logically inconsistent; this is not true of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote: They use special pleading the same way you do to make their religions seem logically consistent and coherent. You don't see it because you're too far in. I can talk all I want, but the only one in a position to help you right now with your delusions is yourself.

Let’s not stoop to that level; I could just as easily dismiss everything you believe as delusional as well, but that does not get us anywhere.

Quote: You keep spreading this shit all you want, but every atheist here, and even those not here, will tell you the same thing that I am.

How do you know who the atheists are here without first possessing a clear definition for the term “atheism”?

Quote: Are all of us wrong about our position?

No, a few on here know how the term is correctly defined.

Quote: Do you get to decide what we are, or do we?

Neither, the philosophical references do, and I agree with their definition. You’re the one asserting your definition is correct and theirs is wrong.

Quote: I mean...I don't exactly call you a Taoist, do I? That would be silly of me.

Yes, it would be silly of you because the philosophical references define my position as Reformed Christianity. That’s why I call myself that, if I believed in the legitimacy of the papacy I would no longer be justified in calling myself a Reformed Christian no matter how much I loved the title. Definitions matter.

Quote: I did, but you ignored the fact that I pointed out that those articles are a combination of outside, legitimate sources. Are you going to keep bugging me about this, or are you going to let it go? I don't agree with your ideas about Burden of Proof, and I never will. There, is that better? Now, if you ask me to prove your claims wrong or right anymore, I'm going to need to end this.

Naturalism and materialism are both positive claims, so therefore you now have the burden of proof according to your article; so prove that the natural universe is all that exists and prove that the material universe is all that exists. Good luck!

(August 1, 2013 at 10:18 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: Wow Stat....SMH...I'm too drunk to respond to this now. Till the A.M. Sir, till the A.M...

Does this mean you’re actually sober in your other responses? Yikes.

(August 1, 2013 at 10:20 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: I think I shouldn't have replied. In fact, I'm doubting whether or not I should keep replying. If anything, I need to scale this discussion down some with him. I need to take the Minimalist route.

The problem with Min (well one of the problems) is that he’s so old he doesn’t remember things accurately. He’s never tried to engage me in any such debate. I’d be more than willing to debate him, but it’ll never happen.

(August 1, 2013 at 10:22 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: I'm starting to think that may be the ONLY way to deal with this rubbish. You can only argue that wheels are round for so long...ugh.

Stick your fingers in your ears and scream, “I can’t hear you!”? That’s what most people resort to when their view of reality is shaken to the core. By all means, do it; we all know what it means.

(August 1, 2013 at 10:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I challenged Waldork to produce all the scientific evidence for life beginning 6,000 years ago in the middle east. He vanished for months.

You actually tried to debate me? Now that is an outrageous claim.

(August 1, 2013 at 10:36 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: What?!!! No!! I refuse to believe that, Waldorf is the chosen one. The trusted scribe of the elders. Surely if there were ever a truth-speaker, it is he.

Ask Min to link to the post he’s referring to, he won’t be able to. He’s all fluff which is why no theist on here takes him seriously. There are atheists who somewhat know what they’re talking about, and then there’s Min.

(August 2, 2013 at 9:30 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: We are just gonna have to agree to disagree here Stat. Your take is that everything should be assumed to be true until proven false, and I think that one must not accept something as true until proven.

And as I have clearly pointed out to you numerous times you assume all sorts of things are true that you cannot prove are true. For some mysterious reason it’s fine and dandy when Texas Sailor does this, but it’s ridiculous when Christians do the same thing.

Quote: If it wasn't breeded into you at a younger age, I assume, that at some point you accepted that the bible was true. That was an assumption on your part. Now you seem to think that this assumption stands on equal footing as the default one shared by one that is not convinced.

There is no default position on such matters, you either assume the Bible is true a priori or you assume it is false a priori. You are no more neutral than I am.

Quote: You don't seem to have any idea as to whether you are thinking forward or backwards at this point. Your logic is so wildly absurd that even you would reject it if it were offered to support a Hindu-Bible. Yet, you continue to say things like this...Do you ever go back and read some of the things you write? Take out "Bible" in your rebuttals and input "The Lord of The Rings" ..It looks something like this:

Fallacious analogy in 3…2….1….

(August 1, 2013 at 3:55 pm)Statler Waldorf in a Simulation Wrote: It’s not, but we’re not talking about merely assuming The Lord of the Rings is false; we’re talking about using arguments that rely upon the assumption that The Lord of the Rings is false in order to argue that the The Lord of The Rings is false, which IS begging the question.

In order for an analogy to actually prove anything it must first be….analogous. Yours is not even close.

1. Lord of the Rings never claims to be true, the Bible does.
2. A person can adhere to a neutral position concerning the veracity of the Lord of the Rings, they cannot in regards to the veracity of scripture.
3. The preconditions of intelligibility can be justified even if the Lord of the Rings is false, they cannot if scripture is false.
Cute but fallacious analogy. It’s sad if you actually thought that was a proper analogy, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re still drunk.

Quote: I know you wouldn't accept this as a sensical statement, yet you say things like this all the time. You sound a lil crazy sir.

Of course I wouldn’t accept it; it’s not analogous to why I accept scripture. If someone who believes that blue whales, mosquitos, bacteria, humans, and red woods are all “blood relatives”, nothing naturally expanded into everything, and who believes that life can naturally arise from non-life thinks I am the one who is a little crazy I am more than fine with that. I’d be a little worried if you approved of my beliefs to tell you the truth.

---

(August 2, 2013 at 12:25 pm)tokutter Wrote: Wow....Statler are you saying no matter the reason god can do anything he wants to us because he created us?????

The Potter has the right over the clay, Romans 9.

Keeping it shorter today. Plus talking to SW is like talking to a mindless drone, so I'm going to talk at him this time.

*Gets up on Soap Box*

Waldorf, how is your Bible true simply because it says that it is? The Book of Mormon says the same thing, so is it true? Was L. Ron Hubbard right, when he said the info in his SCI-Fi books was actually true?

On top of all that, since the Bible has claimed to be true, it has the burden of proof placed on it. Since then, only a handful of events have been shown to be true. A few pieces of corn does not make a piece of shit Shepherd Pie.

Since science has demonstrated evolution to be real, it kicks a young earth in the ass. Not only that, but once abiogenesis was shown to be real, we know that it probably happened, even if we don't know how. The Bible's creation story falls flat on its ass, and this isn't because of some agenda that scientists have against God; it's simply how reality looks. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you have some fiction tossed into that Bible of yours. This being said, we now have a piece of work on par with The Lord of the Rings.

I'll tell you what though. Coming to this conclusion was completely unnecessary. If the Bible is still claimed as a work of history, the wouldn't autobiographies as well? With that in mind, should we take what these autobiographers say at face value? I mean, hell, they fucking lie about the events in their life sometimes.

SW, this is what gives us the right to treat the Bible like a work of fiction...you can't prove it's 100%, so everything in it is up for debate. With the whole Bible being a questionable piece of work, we should never take it at face value. The fact that you do, SW, speaks volumes of your true character, and this is not a compliment.

Now, to wrap this all up, do you have any demonstrable evidence for your God, SW? Oh, the evidence is all your own? I have to experience God to know him? I need faith, and that's all the evidence I need?

No, fuck that. Religion is simply Santa Claus for adults. We need to put our imaginations to better use than dreaming up Gods and telling people that they exist simply...because...they exist.

Quote:Naturalism and materialism are both positive claims

So are supernatural claims. Evidence of both material and natural things are ubiquitous. Evidence of supernatural things exist, as far as anyone has ever been able to demonstrate, only in the minds of those who assert they do.

Why should anybody accept a claim which is, by its nature, impossible to demonstrate and utterly indistinguishable from fiction?

(August 9, 2013 at 9:11 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Plus talking to SW is like talking to a mindless drone, so I'm going to talk at him this time.

Do you always struggle so mightily at the hands of the “mindless”?

Quote: *Gets up on Soap Box*

Watch your head.

Quote: Waldorf,

Yes?

Quote: how is your Bible true simply because it says that it is? The Book of Mormon says the same thing, so is it true? Was L. Ron Hubbard right, when he said the info in his SCI-Fi books was actually true?

You’re not following me apparently; perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly. I do not accept the Bible for what it is simply because it claims to be true, that’s simply the first step. I was merely pointing out that comparing the Bible to works of fiction that never claim to be true is a fallacious analogy. A person must start somewhere in there conceptual scheme, and starting with the Bible leads to the most logically consistent and coherent view of reality; that is how I know it must be what it claims to be. Does that make more sense?

Quote: On top of all that, since the Bible has claimed to be true, it has the burden of proof placed on it. Since then, only a handful of events have been shown to be true. A few pieces of corn does not make a piece of shit Shepherd Pie.

No, the Bible would only bear the burden of proof if a person could reason from a neutral position in order to determine its veracity. However, such neutrality does not exist, people either have to assume the Bible is true a priori or that it is false a priori. The only difference being that when you assume it Is true you end up with a far more logically consistent and defensible view of reality than when you assume it is false. Therefore, I can know it is true.

Quote: Since science has demonstrated evolution to be real, it kicks a young earth in the ass.

What do you mean by evolution? Scientifically speaking, that term has numerous meanings.

Quote: Not only that, but once abiogenesis was shown to be real, we know that it probably happened, even if we don't know how.

They’ve synthesized life in the laboratory? Where?
Even if they had shown it could happen (which they have not yet done so), that does not establish that it in fact did happen (I thought you did not believe anything upon faith?).

Quote: The Bible's creation story falls flat on its ass, and this isn't because of some agenda that scientists have against God; it's simply how reality looks.

No, it’s an agenda, try questioning Darwinism sometime.

Quote: I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you have some fiction tossed into that Bible of yours.

How do you know this?

Quote: I'll tell you what though. Coming to this conclusion was completely unnecessary. If the Bible is still claimed as a work of history, the wouldn't autobiographies as well? With that in mind, should we take what these autobiographers say at face value? I mean, hell, they fucking lie about the events in their life sometimes.

I am not merely arguing for the historical value of scripture (which is something already established), I am arguing for inerrancy.

Quote: SW, this is what gives us the right to treat the Bible like a work of fiction...you can't prove it's 100%,

Sure I can, and already have. Without the premise that the Bible is what it claims to be all knowledge, science, and proof is rendered impossible. By appealing to knowledge, science, and proof all you are doing is proving that the Bible is what it claims to be.

Quote: The fact that you do, SW, speaks volumes of your true character, and this is not a compliment.

My character? What does my character have to do with my conceptual scheme? That seems to be quite the non-sequitur.

Quote: Now, to wrap this all up, do you have any demonstrable evidence for your God, SW? Oh, the evidence is all your own? I have to experience God to know him? I need faith, and that's all the evidence I need?

Sure, the very notion of evidence proves that the God of scripture exists. Speaking of faith, why did you ignore my point about what you believe upon faith?

Quote: No, fuck that. Religion is simply Santa Claus for adults. We need to put our imaginations to better use than dreaming up Gods and telling people that they exist simply...because...they exist.

Speaking of character, it looks like your wife needs to keep your lack of civility in check again.

(August 9, 2013 at 9:31 pm)Ryantology Wrote: So are supernatural claims.

You just proved my point! That’s why your simplistic understanding of the burden of proof fails; all claims are positive.

Quote: Evidence of both material and natural things are ubiquitous.

Yes, but both naturalists and super-naturalists believe that the material and natural exist; so this evidence supports both positions. As a naturalist and materialist you need to prove that ONLY the natural and material exist. Get to it.

Quote: Evidence of supernatural things exist, as far as anyone has ever been able to demonstrate, only in the minds of those who assert they do.

No, this is a presupposition made in accordance with naturalism; it is not a demonstrable fact.

Quote: Why should anybody accept a claim which is, by its nature, impossible to demonstrate and utterly indistinguishable from fiction?

I do not know, but that sort of claim has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Naturalism and materialism are both positive claims, and according to you and BWS positive claims bear the burden of proof- so prove that the natural is all that exists and prove that the material is all that exists. Until you do so, I simply reject both claims upon the grounds of lack of evidence.

(August 12, 2013 at 4:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: A person must start somewhere in there conceptual scheme, and starting with the Bible leads to the most logically consistent and coherent view of reality; that is how I know it must be what it claims to be. Does that make more sense?

Make sense? No. It may qualify you for one of these though.

(June 27, 2013 at 5:53 pm)Godschild Wrote: [...] why can't you go to scripture and try to disprove what Christians believe.

Why would we have to disprove a book that Christians themselves admit is taken 'on faith'?