This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
I have lost my faith...In internet skeptics.
Number 375 (the last entry) is the best!!!
This is not an Atheist link it is satire against an atheist link called "Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence".Found here:http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htmThat original link is even more funny since it's filled with simplistic straw men presentations of various traditional proofs for the existence of God.Gnus are just too stupid to be allowed to tie their own shoes.
#265 seems pretty airtight:ARGUMENT FROM OPRAH(1) Oprah believes in God.(2) Therefore, God does not exist.Who could dispute that?
(1)"Hundreds of Proofs of God's Existence" is epic and hilarious.(2)"Hundreds of Proofs of God's Non-Existence" is derivative and lame.(3)Therefore, God does not exist.(133 is pretty good though)
1. "That original link is even more funny since it's filled with simplistic straw men presentations of various traditional proofs for the existence of God." [Yachov]2. Couple that list with this list and there is no proof of god.3. Therefore, god does not exist.;o)
Hundreds of proofs of God's existence is brilliant satire. Hundreds of proofs of God's non-existence is lame. Why, because the former supports my ideology, and the other does not.
"Why, because the former supports my ideology, and the other does not."Spot on.
Ben: Gnus are just too stupid to be allowed to tie their own shoes. Except - it wasn't a gnu who believed that a rather obvious spoof was a genuine counter apologetics site then went on to post a link on his own blog site, complete with sarky, triumphalist comment. Was it?
Hundreds of proofs of God's existence is brilliant satire. Hundreds of proofs of God's non-existence is lame. Why, because the former supports my ideology, and the other does not.Victor, "non-existence" is moderately amusing, however, the fact that it is not an original idea but just a response to someone else's idea inevitably detracts from it.
Whether it's for or against the existence of god (and whether or not the author intended), both of these things are satires of existence-of-god proofs. Look at number 3, for example. A perfect parody, even if the author didn't intend it as such.
>Except - it wasn't a gnu who believed that a rather obvious spoof was a genuine counter apologetics site then went on to post a link on his own blog site, complete with sarky, triumphalist comment. Was it?No a Gnu just wrote the original stupidity.As wither or not Victor knew this was a Theistic spoof or not I cannot say.Of course if he did make mistake he usually in my experience owns it.Gnus can't admit mistakes. They are mentally inferior.
Of course it's a joke. Who would think it wasn't?
Of course it's a joke. Who would think it wasn't?You, apparently. And of course ozzie and B Prokop who also tumbled into the elephant trap, before Ben turned up to alert you all to what was actually going on.
Boy, but is Frances ever dense. My comment was about what a good joke number 375 was. Not for a second did I think it was genuine. (And number 375 is still funny!)In the inimitable words of the Frances clone, Mr. Linton Wilson, "Sheeesh!"
"In the inimitable words of the Frances clone, Mr. Linton Wilson, "Sheeesh!"Don't worry, frances, you are in good company . This is the stock branding that all commenters that use reason, logic and evidence are subjected to by the purveyors of supernatural superstitionists. Once you cross that threshold and enquire and demand evidence for things imagined 'sacred', be prepared for the onslaught of personal abuse to follow, the cries of 'intellectual dishonesty, to the din of "Gnus are just too stupid to be allowed to tie their own shoes", and to the claims of your being incapable of comprehension, understanding, to calls of scientism, and a host of other disparaging and belittling remarks about your person and character. These are the trademark responses aimed at those that not only question the validity of a putrescent corpse revivifying with no ill-effect or adverse physical impairment to the body and brain of that cadaver but, to add insult to injury, castigate those that challenge the actuality of this said whole, physical body to simply float up into the sky, as if a balloon filled with helium, to some idealized holiday destination somewhere in the aether above.frances, welcome to Wally world.
Papalinton, if you aren't willing to answer my previous challenge, I'd love to have a debate with you on my blog on the topic of either the Resurrection or the Ascension. What say you?
Papa L,Yes, the level of debate from theists on this site is disappointing. Some of it has been so puerile it's been like trying to hold a rational conversation with Beavis and Butthead.
Yes, the level of debate from theists on this site is disappointing. Some of it has been so puerile it's been like trying to hold a rational conversation with Beavis and Butthead. She said, whimpering.By all means, Frances - try to build some atheist bridges between yourself and our resident liar and plagiarist. I'm sure wallowing in the intellectual mud will be quite offset by the feel of camaraderie.That said - I think you could hold your own against Beavis. Butthead would wipe the floor with you. ;)
Don't worry about crude, frances. He is a legend in his own mind, a rebel without a clue. His bark is worse than his toothless suck, and if you become a little inattentive you'll look down and discover he's humping your leg. He is what others have astutely identified as a stalker.Pay whatever attention as you wish to his comments, to seek out what little of substance he might inadvertently convey but I suggest you pursue him with lots of benevolent humour. He needs a sustaining salve for his charred ego.
Cale"Papalinton, if you aren't willing to answer my previous challenge, I'd love to have a debate with you on my blog on the topic of either the Resurrection or the Ascension. What say you?"I would love to. As you know I was a god-damned Jesus believer for decades until I realized no intellectually substantive argument could be sustained for a putrescent corpse revivifying and have it float up into the sky without resort to a belief in magic or miracles. I have read every reason and apologetical explanation imaginable, even WLC's rendition, for the said occurrence and they remain terribly unconvincing and fatally flawed because they either punt to a leap over the possibilities or the invoking of miracles. It has to be more substantive than Craig's declaration of “inner witness of the Holy Spirit” trumps everything": It has to not rely on the fall-back position William Lane Craig believes that the evidence for or against God doesn’t really matter, because the"…the way we know Christianity to be true is by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit. Now what do I mean by that? I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is… unmistakable… for him who has it; …that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit…1…it is the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit that gives us the fundamental knowledge of Christianity’s truth. Therefore, the only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role… The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel… and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel. In light of the Spirit’s witness, only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate. Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology. Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith…2[The inner witness of the Spirit] trumps all other evidence.3"READ MORE HERESuch self-dosed immunity to arguments and evidence does not inspire much confidence in treating apologists with intellectual respect.But, if you have unassailable evidence, real, new stuff about the Resurrection that has not already been raked over, start writing it down. I will be happy to respond to the new stuff. And who knows? I might even convert back.
Not this WLC nonsense again. I don't think his position is a stupid as some people do, but I have been critical of it. http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-question-for-bill-craig-on-inner.htmlIf you are going to make Craig's statement the typical Christian view, the how about this statement by Lewontin as a representation of atheism: Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so stories [in evolutionary biology] because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material causes, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who believes in God can believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen. Or this: http://old.richarddawkins.net/discussions/642394-there-can-be-no-evidence-for-god-revisited
Does 3000 word opening statements then 2000 word rebuttals on the question "Is it irrational to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus?" sound like a good format to you, papalinton?
With apologies to Mr. David Caruso, if Paps does convert and decides to be in communion with the See of Rome, I expect his new username will be (•_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■) "Papal Inton"
Lewontin? As representing atheists and atheism in general? Hardly. Many if not most biologists, other scientists and science philosophers deem him rather anti-scientific particularly when he compromised his science with his politics. He did some great science to be sure but his fame is largely a result of his polarizing attitude. His later work on the Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm, a paper he co-authored with S J Gould, never got the traction in scientific circles he believes he richly deserved. Why? Because it was less about the sciences and more about political provocation. For this he was peeved.So, Dr Reppert, your choice of candidate is singularly trite and fails to impress.Your second reference, one that I well remember reading, which is not one from Dr Dawkins per se, but written by regular commenter, Steve Zara, is a corker, one of the most lucid and erudite of presentations. It would be one I would welcome on this site as an OP for discussion.But coming back to WLC for a moment, he is acknowledged as one of the greats of contemporary Christian crusaders for the existence of supernatural god-entities. How many times have commenters here on this site marveled at and proudly touted how he pwns every atheist known to human kind in debate? And yet, you blithely cast him aside as nonsense.
I consider his achievements in philosophy to be very substantial and considerable. However, I think his "Holy Spirit" argument has some serious problems. Does that surprise you? Or do all you atheists close ranks on all controversial issues. If you buy Zara's argument, can you honestly complain that God hasn't provided enough evidence? If he's right, then no matter what God did, he could never make it reasonable to believe he exists.
Victor,Thank you for linking to Steve Zara's delightful little essay. He has revealed in a single sentence why so many atheists are utterly impervious to reason:"We should make it clear that all arguments that lead to gods are wrong because they lead to gods!"Faced with such Haters of Reason as the "New Atheists", any attempt to argue them out of their error is futility itself - they have already ceded the point that their position cannot be argued (either for or against).How tragically ironic that the self-styled Champions of Reason are also the greatest rejecters of the same. Wisely does Scripture tell us:"For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. (Matthew 13:12)
"any attempt to argue them out of their error is futility itself - they have already ceded the point that their position cannot be argued (either for or against)."Exactly. Those theists simply will not accept a rational argument. tell me again, Bob, why is is impossible for machine to achieve consciousness?
Pardon my sloppy typing, but I ask in all seriousness. How can theists accuse atheists of being impervious to reason when they insist that there are immaterial-supernatural entities that made us and control everything we do? Try to get a theist to concede that it is rational to believe that the world developed naturally without the help of any such entities, and this is their reply: "You're impervious to reason." Try to get them to admit that the evidence is not on their side, and they deny the evidence.Spare me your complaints about atheists like Zara who are convinced by that evidence. You are just as convinced of your position. What's the difference? What makes you any better?
"there are immaterial-supernatural entities that made us"Change your plural to a singular, and what is irrational about such an idea? I'm being serious here - I see nothing against reason in the statement, "God created the Heavens and the Earth." If there is some logical error there, please tell me what it is."control everything we do"Skep, Skep, Skep... we just spent an entire thread explaining that God does not "control everything we do" - and here you act like you haven't read (or understood) a single word."Try to get them to admit that the evidence is not on their side, and they deny the evidence."How can I admit to or deny evidence I haven't seen? Where is this vaunted evidence? Let's have it! You have yet to proffer any.
There's the immaterial entity that created us, and the one that controls our actions. You call it a soul, don't you? Do you deny this? What evidence do you have for these things? Anything other than arguments for their existence? Any objective scientific evidence?"How can I admit to or deny evidence I haven't seen? Where is this vaunted evidence? Let's have it! You have yet to proffer any."Deny, deny. Have you tried doing any reading? Here's one place you can find plenty of interesting articles.http://cogsci.mystream.co.uk/resource_overview.html
"Deny, deny."Huh? Deny what? What is it I am supposed to be denying?
"Huh? Deny what? What is it I am supposed to be denying?"All the scientific material about how the brain works, about the nature of cognition - material that you evidently refuse to recognize. Try doing some reading. But be prepared to encounter information that contradicts your beliefs. I'm not saying all the answers are there, but there's a wealth of knowledge about what's going on in the brain, and it doesn't point to any soul, or any immaterial influences.You complain about atheists being irrational - your refusal to see the scientific evidence that refutes your beliefs is irrational.
"All the scientific material about how the brain works, about the nature of cognition - material that you evidently refuse to recognize."Since I've never before felt the need to mention it, you can be excused for not knowing that my daughter is nearly finished with medical school (John Hopkins University) and my son-in-law is a molecular biologist at the same institution. I get exposed to the latest research in the fields you mentioned all the time, and am well up (on layman's terms) on the latest developments. I have never once heard anything that even remotely "contradicts [my] beliefs." I have no idea what you are talking about, and strongly suspect you do not either. You seem to be merely parroting talking points that you've never questioned (i.e., showed any skepticism towards).As for "there's a wealth of knowledge about what's going on in the brain, and it doesn't point to any soul, or any immaterial influences." Of course it doesn't! The "wealth of knowledge" you are referring to concerns the PHYSICAL OPERATIONS within the brain. If something did appear to "point to any immaterial influences" it would be immediately suspect. How could physical research possibly point toward something it's not looking for? Do you not understand anything? This is where trying to have an intelligent conversation with you gets so frustrating. I am half convinced you are a sock puppet for an anonymous theist who wants to create a strawman atheist for the sole purpose of giving real atheists a bad name.
"How could physical research possibly point toward something it's not looking for? "I'd say it's not looking for it because it is not there. Consider; the act of thinking is a physical process, that is, neurons firing in memory banks, retrieving memories out of the brain's library, all triggered by the pre-frontal cortex where conscious awareness activity is located, and the thought is centred around a particular passage from the bible about the Abrahamic god, which concurrently triggers a surge of endorphins and serotonin, another physical activity of the brain which simultaneously triggers a warm fuzzy emotional response and feeling of well being, not only in the brain but throughout the body. Question. Where and how does the jesus-god break into, intervene, and manipulate this physical process? Brain activity is purely a physical process that operates only within the laws of physics. What's the difference between a self-generated thought and a god-generated thought? Are all thoughts about jesus-god and the bible and all things sacred, god-generated thoughts? And all things about work, about the car, about the pesky neighbour, self-generated thoughts? If you are so sure that you know the difference between them, or which are clearly self-willed thoughts as opposed to god-invoked thoughts, please tells us?Otherwise, shut up about what science can and cannot know or look for because you do not have a clue.
Post a Comment