One natural place for bullies to end up is the military, where a strict hierarchy can put them in positions of safety. One such example: Major Jonathan Dowty, who has a blog called the “Christian Fighter Pilot” and belongs to the Officer’s Christian Fellowship, where privileged thugs can gather and plot to proselytize to the lower ranks. Or simply to attack the helpless.
As a devout Christian officer, Major Dowty has made it a practice to publicly attack and defame atheist and other non-Christian enlisted service members by name, knowing that they can’t respond to defend themselves because he’s an active duty officer, so it would be insubordinate for them to respond to him.
The only salvation is to leave the military, get out from under the regulations that protect creatures like Dowty, and speak out…as one sergeant has now done on This Week in Christian Nationalism.
I’m just wondering when the other officers will recognize that Dowty is using his religion as a club to hammer on enlisted men, and realize that maybe this is not helping morale or unit cohesion? Unless, of course, they want a military consisting only of religious zealots. Do we civilians want a Janissary corps, though?
How is this allowed to happen? Seriously. How.
In Murrika you can’t be a real citizen if you aren’t a nationalist. You cannot be a nationalist if you don’t believe that the ultimate calling is being a private in the military. And you cannot, obviously, meet this calling without being part of the ‘Jesus and Friends’ club.
I remember how much propaganda was thrown around post 9/11 to ensure that young, poor, brownies (like myself) rallied around this notion that America would be a lesser country if white Jesus wasn’t in the cockpit.
This officer’s action is a product of a culture of entitlement. I feel bad for him. He (probably) will never lead an examined life. He will continue on in thinking that his views, and his views only, are the One True Way.
He will probably never understand how much of a jack ass he is.
IANAL but couldn’t a complaint be filed by these people under UCMJ article 93?
No wonder Xians don’t want kids to be taught ethics, from a philosophical perspective, (rather than a religious one), in school.
Yeah good luck there. This is the kind of response complaints get.
Major Dowty should face a court martial for conduct unbecoming an officer.
Will never happen. He’ll not see as much as a nasty note in his service record.
*God help him if he ever meets a Colonel who’s an atheist.
*metaphorically and rhetorically.
Although many Christians would of course also recognize this as unfair bullying and coercion, I think this sort of approach is bound to fall out of a worldview that divides humanity into the saved and the damned — and sees choosing to have faith in untestable things as a disciplined test of character. When you examine it the rhetoric which surrounds belief in the supernatural is often framed in terms of struggle and conquest. It’s a fight against the devil, the world, and your rational conscience. Be strong and stay true and don’t bend under doubt and skepticism: stand up for God.
I can see why a Christian in the military would think that encouraging a belief that the universe itself is arranged in a descending hierarchy of unquestionable authority and obedient subordinate might make a good army; I can also see why a Christian in the military would think that encouraging a belief that having faith requires moral “toughness” might make a good soldier. Plus, you get God on your side as the story writes itself with you on the side of God.
Armies are notorious for considering what “works” as more important than what is right. And religion is very good in justifying that what works must after all be right.
How many times does this need to be said? Talibangelicals are a law unto themselves: they do not have to obey civil law and, obviously, they do not have to obey military law. Because those responsible for enforcing the law refuse to take action, the Talibangelicals are given free reign to do whatever their delusional voices order them to do. And when law enforcement does come knocking, the Talibangelicals start screaming about how they are being persecuted.
And law enforcement backs down, finding it preferable to let the worst of the inmates run the asylum.
“But the panel said it had found no “overt religious discrimination”” sounds so much like a copout…
Judge: Overt aggression is a crime…
Defendant: But you honor, he only “covertly” slaughtered masses with his chainsaw, you have to release him!
Judge: Oh… it was covertly? Release him!
Just a heads up, Maj. Dowty is under investigation. I recently got a base-wide email about an FOIA request of information about him. Anyone on base who’s had any correspondence with him or his associates has to submit all of their emails, letters, &c.
Sastra @ 6;
This kind of post hoc moral justification is a major problem in many militaries. It is just a slightly more sanitised version of ‘might makers right’, and it has come to the fore in recent wars.
With no small number of highly religious soldiers in the US military, I wonder to what degree the Middle Eastern wars of the last decade have been cast as some kind of battle between ‘light and darkness’ where the ends justify the means and the ‘enemy’ is not merely seen as the opposing force, but is instead conceptualised as being inherently evil? It is not difficult to imagine how such a mindset could feed into the horrors of Abu Ghraib and the other human rights abuses that have come out of those conflicts. It’s dehumanisation 101. Once you add in mercenary groups that enjoy considerable legal protection and whose senior executives espouse a militant religious agenda, like Blackwater, then the situation can only deteriorate.
Idiots in uniform like Major Jonathan Dowty are not merely making the lives of non-christian soldiers difficult; by trying to force out or convert non-christian soldiers he, and the other officers like him, are contributing to a fervant and uniform religious environment in the military ranks that massively increases the liklihood that religiously motivated warcrimes will occur, and that they will go unpunished.
Sounds to me like the modern education movement. It is looked down upon to challenge the status quo. To question Evolution is to get out of rank and one can expect to be reprimanded.
It’s easy to send troops to die if you believe in afterlife.
To question Evolution on religious grounds is the epitome of showing your ass to the crowd.
You and your incarcerated father have been showing your ass for years.
Nothing but religious blubbering and nothing else. You’re a joke.
Psalm 116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints
Trying to reason that you can reason is the joke!
Name calling already? We just got started. How about a good exchange before we start that?
Seeing as you think evolution is true this means you have a standard of truth correct?
Rev. How do you know that? For that matter, how do you know anything?
Without God we know nothing and have no ability to reason.
Where do you get your morality from as an Atheist Evolutionist?
Do you believe in absolute truth?
Rev. Big Dumb Chimp: You know that the God of the Bible exists just as well as we do!
erichovind @ 11;
Because not being allowed to force your unevidenced religious delusions down the throats of others and thereby subvert scientific education to the cause of religious indoctrination is exactly the same as a military officer using his rank and privilege to target non-christians for the ‘crime’ of not following the ‘one true faith’.
Oh, false equivalency, thy name is erichovind…
How about you supply conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity, and the innerrance of your babble. Or, shut the fuck up. You have failed miserably before on those requirements to have a logical and cogent discussion.
yeah he was only doing what his truth told him to do, everyone has their right and wrong according to humanism, so why was he wrong? why aren’t evolutionists wrong in preaching evolution?
Since god does not exist, this explains a lot about Christians.
Does light have mass? ;-P
Erichovind, take your godbot posse and try again elsewhere. No one is buying your snake oil here.
Sally Strange, OM
How do you know that?
How do you know that God does not exist, and that your reasoning about that proposition is correct?
I know by observation that Christians constantly demonstrate that they know nothing and have no ability to reason. You yourself are an excellent example.
No the joke is your criminal father and yourself and your long history of spreading the arrogant ignorance and anti-intellectualism you revel in.
We did not just get started Eric. You have a long history of showing your ass on this blog (in its various versions) and other places.
I expect this exchange will be no different.
How do you, since you believe in a mythical/fictional babble?
Is anybody interested in using reason rather than name-calling and vulgarity?
Good argument!
Nerd,
Sure, the proof of God is that without God you can’t know anything. That is my Premise. Now let me ask you a question, do you know anything for certain?
I don’t believe in the existence of things for which there is no evidence. I class god in with dragons, unicorns, leprechauns, Zeuss, Odin, and all the other fictional characters and creatures that humans have invented since they started using language.
How do you know that god does exist?
Lack of solid and conclusive physical evidence. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Got an eternally burning bush handy, for example…
Personally, I enjoy doing both.
Aww look, they’ve arrive en masse.
Cute.
Same way you do, by revelation from the God who knows everything!
Ta folks! Have fun stomping the godbots!
Sally Strange, OM
I know by observation that Christians constantly demonstrate that they know nothing and have no ability to reason. You yourself are an excellent example.
Where do you think your ability to reason comes from?
On what basis do you trust your reasoning (please respond without being viciously circular).
Because we wouldnt know anything if God never did exist… how do you know logic?
” It is looked down upon to challenge the status quo. To question Evolution is to get out of rank and one can expect to be reprimanded.”
Incorrect. Science is about going where the evidence points. Science is utterly indifferent to the status quo in that respect. And that includes previous scientific discoveries: there is incentive to overturn previous paradigms. You just need to have the logic and evidence to back it up, and to actually provide a case for your new interpretation that is better than the old one.
So, what do we have with creationists? People desperate to return to a status quo of over a century ago, using bad arguments that have been dealt with over a century ago, and whining about how dogmatic is to dismiss their illegitimate criticisms. You are not a rebel, Eric Hovind. You are not a unique little snowflake with a clever new idea. You are not representing a stifled movement with a novel, well-supported paradigm that stodgy old scientists are unwilling to accept. You have dusty old dogmas based on misunderstandings and fallacies. You have the same stock arguments that have been refuted a thousand times. You have a desperate desire to overturn established scientific facts to return to a past where one portion of your holy book was slightly less nonsensical. Leave this “status quo” whining out of it. The case for creationism should be established the same way that the case for evolution has been made: with logic and scientific evidence. If you can’t make the positive case for creationism, then you have failed. All the whining that you do about how unfair it is to dismiss creationism for its complete and utter failure to make its own case will not change that.
That old well refuted tripe. Sorry, evolution requires the ability to learn things, so an animal or human knows what to eat, how to indentify preys and predators. And did that long before Yahweh became even an idea in the minds of some recent Canaanites.
How do you know you aren’t a delusional fool, who picked the wrong deity and holy book?
Since we know that God exists and that fact to be certain simply because without God we CAN’T KNOW ANYTHING, that is the very reason why we are on this blog trying to help Atheists realize this.
Ta Ta! When the going get’s tough, the atheists… leave!
I am shocked that an officer would use his position of authority over his subordinates to get away with discriminatory behavior. Shocked.
Out of curiosity, does the air force have an unspoken ‘I didn’t see the chevrons rule?’ Just asking.
Nerd,
Are you absolutely certain of that? Could it be possible that you are wrong about everything you know?
Evolution. Not from imaginary and unevidenced deities.
The fool says in their heart their is no God! Psalm 14:1
Because without God we couldn’t know anything. With out God you can’t have immaterial laws of logic that are, unchanging and universal.
God and His Word are not the conclusion to our argument, but the necessary presuppostion. How do you know anything?
Well, Satan, if you take your bullshit book of fiction seriously.
But in truth, the ability to reason comes from biochemical interactions taking place within your brain. Or whatever it is that you have in place of a brain.
Nerd,
Let me guess, you are going to give me a circular argument and reason that your reasoning is valid. Been there done that. So how do you know anything?
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. ~ Proverbs 1:7
It’s too bad the godbots here are confusing the God that Knows Everything with the god christians prey to.
Sally Strange,
You said you wanted to reason logically, then you believe in logic?
MR. Fire;
How do you know where those chemicals came from?
That totally will not pass moderation.
Truer words were never spoken. Since I know there is zero evidence for bible-god’s existence, and YOU know there is zero evidence for bible-god’s existence, then both our states of knowledge are exactly the same.
The difference is, I am not a stupid worm to believe in bible-god despite the evidence, while you … are.
Too bad for you, but you could grow a backbone anytime and stop bowing to that stupidity. Who knows, it could even happen as a result of something you hear on this very thread. We have been known to awaken the sleeping intelligence of deluded christers before.
If I were you, and I valued my unsupported faith, I would get away from this blog right away. Don’t say we didn’t warn you. Your non-immortal non-soul is in peril. Hee hee.
Mr. Fire,
So could your biochemical interactions be off?
Alverant,
I agree, The God that knows everything is not always the God Christians pray to. Sad. We are trying to fix that. #prayforthechurch
What is the source of logic?
How does biochemistry produce truth? If I take a bottle of Dr. Pepper and a bottle of Mountain Dew, shake them up, and open them, I get fizz, not truth. If evolution were true, you would be simply fizzing atheistically and I would be fizzing theistically!
Again, how do you get truth form chemical reactions?
Say hello to your daddy, erichovind.
Wait? Where is he? Is that because of evolution?
It is the same God!
No, you are more wrong in what you know. We both know that. You can’t prove your imaginary deity with solid and conclusive physical evidence. All you have is presupposition, commonly called the loser argument. Just like your “knowledge” argument. A presuppositional loser argument. Designed for losers like, to think they have something. You don’t, other that your delusions.
@mrfire
the very way you submitted your comment by using vulgar language and an ad hominem is a sign of not using intelligence in argumentation. If you think something to be right and something to be wrong, you are using an absolute. Would you admit that?
Please look up the “tu quoque fallacy.”
JoyG:
Cute. Can jews reason? They have the same god but don’t worship your savior – does that count? What about mormons? I’m sure I’ve seen some of them reasoning and they’re not true christians, apparently. What about muslims? Can they reason? They have a god, your mileage may vary as to whether its the same one or not. Hindus have lots of gods, so do they reason better? Or does reasoning only happen uniquely in the minds of christians in the world today? Did no reasoning take place in Japan before christian missionaries arrived? What about the Mayans and Incas – did they reason before their demise?
Or perhaps you’re just spewing trite soundbites without even bothering to think about what you’re saying.
Do you believe in absolutes?
You’re gonna have to be more specific.
Seeing as you think evolution is true this means you have a standard of truth correct?
erichovind says:
4 November 2011 at 4:51 pm
Rev. How do you know that? For that matter, how do you know anything?
JoyG says:
4 November 2011 at 4:51 pm
Without God we know nothing and have no ability to reason.
KST says:
4 November 2011 at 4:52 pm
Where do you get your morality from as an Atheist Evolutionist?
AJ says:
4 November 2011 at 4:52 pm
Do you believe in absolute truth?
Morphing, or are we witnessing The Borg with a lobotomy?
Oh, and great, we get SyeTenb here along with Eric Hovind. That’s massive amounts of stupid, right there. Ever occur to you that the laws of logic, etc. are handy descriptions of the way things work, and not Immaterial Objects floating about in the Aether, thrust upon by us The Lawyer of the Cosmos? No, you wouldn’t, because it means you couldn’t keep spouting off the same argument over and over for a bloody decade.
If any of you (atheists) could be convinced that God exists on your terms, would you worship Him?
Where are you getting your absoluts to say that you are right and we are wrong?
To all atheists on this blog: If you knew that God exists, would you worship Him?
Someone surreptitiously loaded a tennis ball cannon with trolls and flipped the switch to “MAX” this morning.
Yep, the imaginary deity for delusional fools, liars, and bullshiters.
Compared to your babble proves god proves babble circular reasoning. You don’t have reasoning, ergo, you don’t know anything. Except loser presuppositional arguments.
Flock of seagulls.
@Eric: creationists are free to present any scientific evidence…they’re not free to lie. This has been your biggest hurdle.
To the seagulls: do us a favor and at least check ironchariots or the like for the FAQs on morality and logic. Talking to toddlers is irksome
Glad you like it! are you interested in any of it?
According to what absolute standard of logic, and how do you account for that standard?
Nope, that would be really dumb. If the laws of logic are descriptive, then they become contingent to that which was described and lose their universality.
Nerd,
So I start with the pre sup that God is true, and I am a looser. You start with the presup that you can reason that reason is valid. Back to my question, could you be wrong? You said no. Do you know everything?
This thread will stand as yet an other reminder of the foolishness of some of the followers of a dominant religion.
Please keep going.
All you are doing is giving a bad case of the giggles to most of the commentators and lurkers.
You clearly do not understand what an ad hominem actually is. I can therefore assume that you do not understand anything else.
(been waiting to bring that one out)
Christotrolls says stop being circular about circular arguments.
Why do we need god to know things? This makes no sense.
Logic requires god? Actually quite the opposite. If god was interfering in the natural universe – the evidence would be in things NOT being logical…you know, that’s where the magic dragon in your garage came from.
Is circular reasoning absolutely fallacious? If so, how do you account for the laws of logic which deem it to be fallacious?
You need to provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Essentially, can you point to the eternally burning bush or equivalent?
No way. I could be convinced it existed, but worship it ? Never. Never.
The so-called god you christers worship is the foulest most hateful piece of shit anybody could imagine.
No human should ever worship your odious god.
robert635732 @ 21:
Yep! Exactly.
You guys don’t think much, do you?
You inferred from my statement that I was stating only Christians could reason. My question was, where does reason come from? This is not a racist argument of who has the ability to think and reason. What is the starting point of reason?
Hmm, and you do not understand what a “hasty generalization” is :-D
People predating your imaginary deity thinking about thinking. What else, as your deity doesn’t exist.
Is it impossible for an all knowing God to exist?
As a military historian I have come across many examples of poor officers over the years. This group of failed leaders exhibit many faults, but the worst of them share one thing practice in common with Major Dowty — bullying their subordinates. It destroys morale and reduces unit cohesion.
As Gen. Kolmar Von Der Goltz said: “Nothing is worse than that the soldier feels himself neglected…., and to believe himself subject, without his own fault, to an effect to which he is powerless.”
Major Dowty’s actions in this regard are a clear violation of regulations, and should be investigated by the Air Force.
Again, expected by evolution. Where did your imaginary deity come from?
Thats what we are saying. How do you all know there is no God when you know you believe there is a God.
I don’t understand what a tu quoque fallacy is, but clearly you don’t either. So you’re in no position to say anything.
(this is fun)
Nerd,
That wasn’t the question. “IF you knew” would you worship Him?
Unless, you know, there is a *reality*, and it just happens to function *logically*. Logic is then a good mapping to/from reality, and perfectly universal.
You need to provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Your turn to supply real and conclusive evidence. Why haven’t you???
MJM no it is not the same god no one has given any proof that it is the same god. The god christians worship is a plagurized collection of gods from older religions. It’s not so much a religion but a marketing campaign.
By what absolute standard of morality do you call God “odius” and how do you account for that standard? Even if what you say were true, on what basis do you tell anyone what they should or should not do?
JoyG, you are showing off a very faulty ability to reason if you are comparing having a believe in a religion to what race one may have.
And the giggling continues.
@ mr. fire
you were waiting to use a fallacy of irrelevant thesis?
Yep, the Uncertainty principle mathematically shows that all-knowing is impossible.
Prove your imaginary deity exists first. If you have the level of evidence to convince me, it probably would also convince PZ and Dawkins. So, where is your solid and conclusive physical evidence???
So, you are saying that what we believe is not true? Well, at least you believe in the concept of “truth.” Where do you get truth from in your worldview?
Are you certain?
Yes, you are a “looser”, you lackwit.
And you’re a loser, too, and a conman and fraud just like dear ol’ daddy.
Your kind are not welcome here.
Not everything, little man. But more than YOU.
And fortunately for you, for your health and material well-being, for the food on your table and the computer on your desk, WE have a tested method of continuing to know more.
All YOU have is a method of NOT KNOWING, merely blind faith.
That is, unless you have some physical evidence, evidence which can be tested?
Right, thought not. Then off you go, along with the other losers, into the dustbin.
So, a bunch of true believers though it would be productive to come on to a blog and stuff it full in inane one liners.
Damn. I am convinced now that your god is real. What great witnesses you are.
SyeTenb, ignoramus extraordinaire: “If any of you (atheists) could be convinced that God exists on your terms, would you worship Him?”
Depends on if it was the Christian God. If so, probably not. I would have to be convinced it was also good. If it was just a plain non-interventionist Deist God, by contrast, probably not as well, because there is no point. I might if it were Zeus though.
AJ, Syecophant Journeyman: “Where are you getting your absoluts to say that you are right and we are wrong?”
I get my Absolut from the grocery store, but it apparently comes from Sweden. As for absolutes: Do you actually need absolutes to say that something is factually correct or not? I much prefer probabilities. If you get a large enough probability that a given view is correct, then saying that it is “right” is reasonable enough for me, even if you don’t have 100% proof. I cannot absolutely say that a house labeled 1000 Main St. is actually on Main St., but there is a very, very large chance that it is, and the onus on those who say that it isn’t to show the bizarre, drastic circumstances that may have made that the case (mislabeling, earthquake, idiosyncratic street layouts). It seems that the people who harp on about absolutes being such necessities either don’t use logic in real life too often, or refuse to use anything except deduction. I can’t see how either can be true of functional human beings.
Do all truth claims require “physical evidence” in order to be valid?
There no absolute standard of morality. Morality has always been defined by the tribe long before your imaginary deity was first imagined. It is all relative. Otherwise, all religions would agree with each other.
Alverant,
in order to know that you would have to know everything for certain, can you prove that???
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Troll
Again, expected by evolution. Where did your imaginary deity come from?
How did you reason that it’s expected by evolution? Did you reason to that conclusion? #circular
It sure as fuck makes it easier to confirm.
Ooh! Troll pit! And you’ve got some real cretins here today! Can I play too?
“By what absolute standard of morality do you call God “odius” and how do you account for that standard? Even if what you say were true, on what basis do you tell anyone what they should or should not do?”
Morality is not absolute. It’s merely a set of ad-hoc rules we come up with to regulate our social interactions with other people. It’s an evolved social phenomenon. But some sets of rules work better than others. Some create happier, more productive, more just and fair and reasonable and prosperous societies. Which is why it is possible to recommend them. If you want happier, more productive, fairer, juster and more reasonable and prosperous societies then it behoves you to adhere to such conventions. If not, continue worshipping the imaginary sky-tyrant and sacrificing your evolved critical faculties on the altar of fatuous delusion.
To all the atheist that would not worship the God of the Bible even if it were proven true, let me ask you this.
If Christianity were TRUE, would you embrace it?
Nerd,
You just made a knowledge claim and an absolute statement.
“By what absolute standard of morality do you call God “odius” and how do you account for that standard? Even if what you say were true, on what basis do you tell anyone what they should or should not do?”
Oh that one is easy. There is no absolute standard. You have to use reason and logic and evidence to arrive at those standards. Morality did not just fall out of the sky…as you claim.
As for evidence: there is that god commanded genocide. (Deut. 7.1-2; 20.16-18)
Look, if you’re going to blindly throw out logical fallacy accusations, with zero idea of what they mean, and expect me to bat a series of meta-jokes right over your head in return, you’re going to have to work with me to build a compelling narrative.
A hasty generalization is a poor substitute for the actual fallacy that I displayed. But what is it? Get working.
Then on what basis do you tell people what they should do (as you did in your post)?
There is no speed limit because if there were, no one would speed. Makes sense.
You need to provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Your turn to supply real and conclusive evidence. Why haven’t you???
You havent answed the the question!! How can you know that what you believe is truth?
Geez, the things I miss by not being a regular reader of this com-box: Eric Hovind, son of loon and felon Kent, and his Squad of Stupid pushing dumbed-down Ravi Zacharias apologetics (which is to say: entertaining fallacies ground down into idiotic cliches, repeated ad nauseum in the hope that sheer repetition will make them true).
Come to think of it, I guess I *do* have better things to do with my time….
How can you say morality is not absolute? On what basis?
Go away for a meeting and I know this is what it would devolve into.
A bunch of children playing the “why” game and ignoring answers.
Presuppositionalism is so lame.
Back to meetings. Have fun with the kiddies.
The classic dumbass loaded question.
If Islam were TRUE, would you embrace it?
“So, you are saying that what we believe is not true? Well, at least you believe in the concept of “truth.” Where do you get truth from in your worldview?”
Consonance with reality as revealed by careful investigation of the evidence. That’s the only approach any of us has to determining what is likely to be true.
Actually, hotshoe, they are very welcome here. It makes for some very low comedy.
Also, if there are any lurkers (or regulars) that is convinced by these pratfalls, they really show go else where.
I wouldn’t go that far. I’ve known some pretty smart Xians in my life who have a pretty good ability to reason.
Though of course, if the only evidence you have is this thread, I could see why you’d think that.
There is no truth claim for your imaginary deity. According to the babble, it did involve itself with real world. Traces of its actions should be there. Try your global-one-time flood killing all but a handful of people and animals. No evidence for anything other than local flooding, putting the babble into the mythology class.
If there is no absolute morality, then on what basis would genocide be wrong?
Jesus Haploid Christ, are you dumb !
You can’t even spell “odius” correctly, when all you had to do was copy-paste my use of it. You have shown yourself too stupid to be worth arguing “morality” with. You couldn’t possibly understand or correctly use the big words necessary for that discussion.
Toddle off back to your christers playhouse where daddy will keep his eye on lackwits like you.
SyeTenb, Densest of the Dense: “Nope, that would be really dumb. If the laws of logic are descriptive, then they become contingent to that which was described and lose their universality.”
Induction. Full stop. It is assumed that the laws of logic can be applied universally because they have been applied, with good results, consistently across place and time.
Now, here are my questions:
How do you know that a god is the source of logic?
How do you know that a god is the only possible source of logic? How do you know that this god is the Christian god?
I contend that you know none of these, and only argue from abject ignorance and lack of imagination. Prove me wrong.
Mac,
Do you want that evidence to be logic?
Funny how erichovind will not answer the question of if dear old dad is in jail because of evolution.
Please answer the question: Do all truth claims require “physical evidence” in order to be valid?
Read the post thoroughly. I explained why.
“To all the atheist that would not worship the God of the Bible even if it were proven true, let me ask you this. If Christianity were TRUE, would you embrace it?”
Which version of christianity do you mean? There have been thousands. All of them utterly incoherent. “christianity” is not one thing. There are as many different “christianities” as there are christians, each being nothing more than an idiosyncratic personal collection of cultural items. In the same way as all other cultural phenomena.
Catromancer:
“Consonance with reality as revealed by careful investigation of the evidence. That’s the only approach any of us has to determining what is likely to be true.”
So are you saying that you cannot be certain about anything?
SyeTenb, genocide is wrong because your god says so. Except for those times when your god says kill them all.
A couple of thousand years of moral philosophy, with The Enlightenment being of particular relevance.
Pretty simple really. Are you really going to pretend you did not know the answer ?
You’re getting close. I think the next time you morph, you’ll get it.
There is no truth claim for your imaginary deity. According to the babble, it did involve itself with real world. Traces of its actions should be there. Try your global-one-time flood killing all but a handful of people and animals. No evidence for anything other than local flooding, putting the babble into the mythology class
How do you know that to be true? Do you know everything?
Logical arguments are logically impossible without God. Any intellectually honest person who has thought about it must admit this.
“How can you say morality is not absolute? On what basis?”
On the basis that we have studied morality, we know where it comes from, and there is nothing absolute about the ad-hoc social rules of an evolved species. Save where they relate to universal things like the realities of the universe which said species has evolved to take advantage of.
You have no truth claims, and we both know that. All you have is presupposition. Show me the evidence.
There is no such thing as absolute certainty. Again, this is basic stuff. As an adult you really are supposed to know this stuff.
Induction. Full stop.
How do you know that induction is valid?
What is the basis for that assumption?
He told us.
He told us.
He told us.
Prove your claim please.
The very concept of proof presupposes God. Proof requires logic, knowledge and truth, none of which can be accounted for outside of God.
Erm, are you certain?
Evidence my ill-read fuckwit. The evidence says you and your babble are wrong. Show the evidence otherwise. I’ve been waiting for forty years….
Matt Penfold
Are you absolutely sure that there is no such thing as absolute certainty??
Mac,
We don’t know everything, and should not claim to, but we know Someone who knows everything. Otherwise, to know anything we would have to know evereything. So what do you know?
“If there is no absolute morality, then on what basis would genocide be wrong?”
There is that reason thing – and you are getting so close: drop that ‘absolute’ thing and you are right on the brink of having a thought in your little head.
As for why genocide is wrong, I’ll first point you to Kant – check out the part about moral imperatives. Then you can come back and try again.
You might also want to drop the absolute thing when considering morality: if morality is absolute, then god would be subject to those rules as well, and then there goes that whole omnipotent thing.
But please continue with the talking points it is funny.
hehe god not true but christinanity is true – how would that work?
Matt Penfold says:
4 November 2011 at 5:38 pm
So are you saying that you cannot be certain about anything?
There is no such thing as absolute certainty. Again, this is basic stuff. As an adult you really are supposed to know this stuff.
Matt, you contradict yourself. It is logically impossible to claim that certainty is impossible.
“So are you saying that you cannot be certain about anything?”
Not absolutely certain, no. All we have to understand the universe with is a couple of pounds of evolved brain matter equipped to run a complex kludge of reality-modelling programmes. We are fallible. We are prone to make mistakes.
Which is why we need the methods of science, reason and empirical inquiry to help us avoid the worst of our foibles. With those we can be as certain as we’re ever likely to get about anything.
Absolute certainty is impossible to achieve and highly dangerous to pursue. We prefer knowledge instead…
The very concept of evidence is evidence that God exists. Show me the evidence that claims require evidence in order to be valid WITHOUT presupposing that they do.
Tut, tut.
If you want answers, you gotta ask the right questions.
A question such as: “What evidence do we have? What evidence do you have? Whose evidence argues their case better?”
Anteprepro,
it clearly states in Scripture that there is only One God, Ephesians 4:6 “there is one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.” Romans 1:21 ” Because that when they knew God, they Gloified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their Imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” This proves that You believe in God. And He is God because it clearly states in Scripture.
Jesus Haploid Christ, another idiot question from the christofascists !
Of course not, you idiot. We don’t WORSHIP TRUTH.
We accept truth, where demonstrated scientifically, so if you can demonstrate the scientific truth of your so-called Christ, the haploid human body, the physical resurrection … yeah, then we’d accept it as true.
But EMBRACE it ? WORSHIP it ? Not on your life, jesus-boy.
Your religion is one of the worst things anyone can imagine. No human should ever embrace your version of god nor its supposed incarnation as Christ.
“The very concept of proof presupposes God. Proof requires logic, knowledge and truth, none of which can be accounted for outside of God.”
You keep saying that but it does not make any sense. If there is no god…why can’t we know things?
Nope. The Christian god is a sexist, racist, genocidal maniac and even if he weren’t, what would be the point?
Why should I believe a book of mythology/fiction? You haven’t proven it inerrant, only presupposed inerrancy.
Oh please stop playing silly games. Either start acting like a grown up or piss off.
Janine,
Wow, so what does that have to do with where absolute laws of Logic came from? #fail
This is one of the surest ways I have seen of religious people making sure they look like gibbering idiots.
Please, keep going. I am sure there are people on the fence who are shedding any respect they might have had for you.
*giggle*
Could you be mistaken about that?
Are you certain?
What do you know that is not certain?
“Please answer the question: Do all truth claims require “physical evidence” in order to be valid?”
I’ll give that a shot: No, but most claims do, and the vast majority of “This definitely exists” claims do.
The only exceptions I know of are mathematics and logical deduction. It’s a self-contained system, and if you’ve already established the starting assumptions using induction and physical evidence, you could use mathematics/logic to determine certain truth claims without directly referencing physical reality. But, both logic and mathematics are systems that have been calibrated with physical reality, such that it can accurately make real world, empirical predictions.
There has been no good logical/mathematical proof of God as a truth claim, by the way. Hence why you are just trying to have your imaginary deity take credit for the entire enterprise and pretend that this is sufficient evidence to believe in it.
Matt Penfold—–
There is no such thing as absolute certainty. Again, this is basic stuff. As an adult you really are supposed to know this stuff.
How do you know that to be certain??????
“it clearly states in Scripture that there is only One God, Ephesians 4:6 “there is one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.” Romans 1:21 ” Because that when they knew God, they Gloified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their Imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” This proves that You believe in God. And He is God because it clearly states in Scripture.”
It clearly states in the Iliad that Zeus is the thunderer on high who apportions fates to man and the universe. This proves that Zeus rules your life, and he rules your life because it clearly states that in the Iliad.
Except it doesn’t, because millennia-old books are the productions of fallible human beings who hadn’t a clue how the universe works.
Question begging.
The very concept of proof presupposes its inerrancy.
Janine, you’re right. I stand corrected, thanks.
Philosophy.
Really, this is pretty pathetic. Are you not ashamed as being so ignorant ?
Talk about fallacious circular presuppositional arguments. Nothing but words salad, meaning nothing, other than your conclusion is the premise.
Still no evidence for our deity. What’s the matter, you don’t have an eternally burning bush handy?
Fuckface, I have not seen any logic at all. What your sycophants call logic is just following the thought pattern of a non existent, non corporeal tyrant.
Just remember to say hi to daddy. Render unto Caesar and all of that bullshit.
GUYS
GUYS
How do you know I’m not in your room right now, standing behind you as you type?
I mean, how can you be absolutely certain I have less than ten legs?
How do you know I’m not inscribing a satanic curse on every photon that emanates from your monitor, infecting your eyeballs and your soul?
Nope, the concept of proof doesn’t require your imaginary deity or mythical/fictional babble. Never did, never will. Philosophy showed that.
KST: “Because that when they knew God, they Gloified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their Imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” This proves that You believe in God. And He is God because it clearly states in Scripture.”
It’s a good thing God gave you logic, right. It’s yours to completely disregard! Seriously, I’m calling Poe’s Law.
Especially since SyeTenb’s answer for why CHRISTGOD is a necessary and sufficient condition for logic is “He told us”. Yep. As fucking stupid and thick-skulled as a remember.
Fire, You were avoiding the question. Would you?
If Islam was true would I embrace it? Of course! See you are showing us that you don’t want to embrace things even if they are true. That is the real problem.
The TRUTH is that islam is not true! Don’t tell me you are going to try to argue for them are you? Because I will have to ask if you are ready to abandon atheism.
Matt Penfold,
Well how many schools of Philosophy are there? How were they certain? And don’t they contradict each other? How can you base certainty on uncertain man?
Tut, tut.
If you want answers, you gotta ask the right questions.
A question such as: “What evidence do we have? What evidence do you have? Whose evidence argues their case better?”
Or questions that get to the foundation of things such as: How do you know something is evidence? How can you be certain about anything? Do we have absolutes? Can we know everything or anythin at all?
Tee hee.
You’re cute, troll. Mind if I pet your hair ?
Janine, So you believe in the absolute laws of logic?
We are fallible. We are prone to make mistakes.
Could you be mistaken about that?
Absolute certainty is impossible to achieve
Are you certain?
We prefer knowledge instead
What do you know that is not certain?
Everything I, and everyone else, knows is not certain. Because we CAN’T be absolutely certain. There is simply no epistemic basis for being absolutely certain about anything. Absolute certainty is a complete non-starter as far as epistemology goes. We simply have no way to verify it.
So we don’t use some fallacious idea of “certainty”, we use the actually useful idea of “knowledge” – i.e. the rigorous application of our evolved mental faculties to the evidence around us. That’s the method we use, and have always used, all of us, for understanding anything. And it may be completely wrong, but it’s the only method we have. And it seems to have worked quite well over the years.
So if you’d like to stop wanking over this pretense that “certainty” is achievable and engage on the level of actual understanding then I’m sure the people here would be awfully grateful…
How do you know that god’s a male? Does he have genitalia? What does he use them for? Is there a Mrs. God? Any cute little baby gods running around? And can you share the baby pictures?
Or is he gay? Or maybe he goes for sheep?
And where does god go to pee? Does he remember to put the toilet seat down when he’s finished?
Read Russell’s History of Western Philosophy.
Fuckface, what you call logic is but kowtowing.
“The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God’.”
-Psalm 14:1
Alvin Plantinga? That you?
Matt– Philosophy.
Really, this is pretty pathetic. Are you not ashamed as being so ignorant ?
You just said that there is no such thing as absolute certainty!!
What? So how do you Philosophy is certain?
Yes, we know you are. That’s all you ever do. Presuppositionalism treats question-begging as the very foundation of logic.
MJM, damn but you proved your point.
Do I get down to my knees now?
What absolute laws of logic? You show not logic. I doubt they exist except as a presupposition in your delusional mind.
Well, folks, as you can see for yourself, the way this clock over here is behaving, TIME IS OF AFFLICTION! This may be cause for alarm among a portion of you, as, from a certain experience, I tend to proclaim: ‘THE EONS ARE CLOSING!’! Now what does this mean, precisely to the layman? Simply this: ‘MOMENTARILY, THE NEED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW LIGHT WILL NO LONGER EXIST!’
Of course, some of you will say: “Who is HE to fell me from this light?” But, in all seriousness, ladies and gentlemen, a quick glance at the erratic behavior of the large, precision-built TIME-DELINEATING APPARATUS beside me will show that it is perhaps only a few moments now! Just look how funny it’s going around there! Personally, I find mechanical behavior of this nature to be highly suspicious! When such a device doesn’t go normal, the implications of such a behavior bodes not well! And, quite naturally, ladies and gentlemen, when the mechanism in question is entrusted with the task of the delineation of time itself, and if such a mechanism goes on the bum, or the fritz… well, it spells trouble!
Go read some introductory books on philosophy. This is basic stuff, and to comment here you are expected to know it already. Really rather rude of you to expect us to educate you.
Nothing is certain except death, taxes, and your deity is imaginary.
@ cartomancer
We could debate evidentially all day long, and you would never be convinced; for even if we could prove God’s existence to you, then you would not worship Him. We should get to the very basis of knowledge first. We say that God is the beginning of knowledge. Without Him, we cannot know anything. We say therefore that the Bible is true because it is God’s Word because it says it is true. This may be considered circular, but where does the basis of logic come from that has defined circular arguments specifically?
(Emphasis added).
Given that I’m not certain what laws are being referenced here, can I get a brief description of what those are?
. . .
We don’t – it’s just the best solution we’ve come up with based on real-world evidence.
If you’d like us to abandon the idea, please present you real-world evidence to counter it.
Thanks.
Sorry, you’re not a cute troll. You’re an ugly bible bashing troll and you’re stupid.
Your incoherent scripture was invented by village conmen, for the same reason Eric Hovind’s criminal daddy invented his frauds, to make a living off the backs of the gullible.
Anyone who thinks using scripture is “proof” doesn’t … think.
It is very simply to realise absolute certainty is an impossibility. We can do it by looking at beliefs that people hold with total certainty and realising that others hold different incompatible beliefs with the same certainty.
TySenB #160 wrote:
Your demand is illegitimate, because you’re assuming the validity of evidence and reason in order to question the validity of evidence and reason. You’ve just refuted yourself. We don’t have to justify justification because the demand for justification assumes justification. It’s circular, all right — but it’s the question which is circular.
Logic and reason are grounded in regularities and consistencies. In abstract situations where we control the factors we can be absolutely certain (A = A). In empirical matters we’re less certain because we can’t control error completely. But not being 100% certain doesn’t mean we can’t be reasonably certain.
Reasonably certain is good enough. It better be, because that bit of doubt allows us to correct for errors. It allows humility.
God — and belief in God — adds nothing to this. After all, as a fallible human being you cannot be 100% certain that God exists, God told you something, God is trustworthy, God wrote a book, etc. This is why you always have to make such a song and dance about having faith. You’re putting your own hopes and desires into a belief. This does not take you out of the equation: it puts you into it.
You can’t borrow God’s infallibility and claim it for yourself. Even if God exists, God does not make you into little gods who make no mistakes. Arrogance on stilts.
“that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under earth and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
-Philippians 2:10,11
You might have an argument here if the facts of history did not contradict you at every instance. What of all of the millions of people and the hundreds of civilizations that thrived and learned with out any knowledge of your bible.
Self deluded idiot.
First the eternally burning bush. Then prove it is Yahweh, and not Allah. And read your babble. Your imaginary deity is one sick socio/psychopath.
MJM would not know sarcasm even if it came and kissed the face of MJM.
And Gödel just squirted a little.
“You just said that there is no such thing as absolute certainty!!
What? So how do you Philosophy is certain?”
What the fuck is wrong with you people? Here’s a question for you: You live alone. You come home to see your front door has been battered down. There are bloody shoeprints leading into your closet. The door is slightly ajar (and wasn’t when you left) and there are breathing noises. Are you absolutely certain that there is an intruder inside of your closet? The answer is, no, you are not. Because there are a variety of unlikely scenarios that could leave you in the same situation. The breathing could be a tape left behind by a killer, could be an animal that snuck in after a break in, could be someone that hid in your house after or before the break in. There may not have been a break in, but a sufficiently large wild animal broke down your door and the bloody shoeprints could have been your own, and you had forgotten.
But are you certain enough that there is a person in there? Based on the evidence, is it highly likely that there is? The answer to that is yes. All other scenarios are fairly implausible, and using a single intruder to explain all of the evidence is by far the most plausible.
You don’t need to deal with complete certainties and absolutes to get reliable, confident answers. Something you Syecophants and Hovindites apparently don’t fucking get.
Matt Penfold —
How can you be certain that there is no certainty?
Ooh, a quote from a book of mytholgy/fiction. Talk about authoratative. NOT.
It is wrong because it causes enormous suffering and extinguishes many human lives prematurely. If you do not consider that wrong in itself, quite independent of what any deity might have to say on the matter, you are a psychopath as well as a fool.
Surely your rewards will be boundless for taking part of this brave act of witlessing.
“We could debate evidentially all day long, and you would never be convinced; for even if we could prove God’s existence to you, then you would not worship Him. We should get to the very basis of knowledge first. We say that God is the beginning of knowledge. Without Him, we cannot know anything. We say therefore that the Bible is true because it is God’s Word because it says it is true. This may be considered circular, but where does the basis of logic come from that has defined circular arguments specifically?”
None of that hangs together.
For a start the question of whether a being exists is entirely separate from the question of whether a being deserves “worship”. I do not think “worship” is necessary in any context, but that has nothing to do with existence.
And “god” is such an ill-defined term that it is pretty much meaningless. You’re going to have to come up with a proper idea of what “gods” are if you want to say anything about them.
Philosophers have attempted to get to the very basis of knowledge for millennia. And theistic ideas have always been a non-starter. Because they’re utterly arbitrary. You say your god is the font of all knowledge, but that’s just an arbitrary assertion. How do you know that? Especially since you don’t know what a god is, have never seen one, and know nothing about them.
Then of course you’re just making the assumption that one particular ancient anthology document was written, somehow, by a god. Which there is no reason to believe save the circular one that the document itself says so. But lots of other documents say the same thing, and they can’t all be right. And all the evidence suggests that they were just written by humans, like all other documents are. It would be utterly obtuse to believe otherwise.
Where does the basis of logic come from? Observations of reality. An understanding of how the real world works, gleaned from the evidence of our experiences. Same as everything else we know.
Repating the same inane assertions is showing your abject stupidity, and lack of evidence.
Of course, neither death nor taxes are truly certain either.
Matt–
(Go read some introductory books on philosophy. This is basic stuff, and to comment here you are expected to know it already. Really rather rude of you to expect us to educate you.)
You are proving that philosophy is certain because its basic knowledge?????
Im asking how you know what you know to be true? So far i havent got an answer!!
Catromancer said: “Everything I, and everyone else, knows is not certain. Because we CAN’T be absolutely certain.”
Cat – can you not see how this statement is self-contradictory? Can you not see how this statement is logically impossible? That is why we start with the presupposition that God exists. Nothing else makes sense.
Ah, the godbotherers are out in force today, I see!
They accuse us of circular logic when theirs looks like this:
I believe in God because the Bible says so! I believe the Bible because I know that it is the Word of God!
They retreat to quoting platitudes and complaining about “rudeness” and “vulgarity,” because they don’t have a fucking leg to stand on.
Define Christianity. Define truth.
Fuckers.
Oh: and for the record O ye holy Pharisees, I’m not an atheist. Don’t try to “save” me, I know where I stand and it sure as fuck isn’t with you.
“We could debate evidentially all day long, and you would never be convinced; for even if we could prove God’s existence to you, then you would not worship Him.”
This is brilliant – we could show you the evidence to convince you but we won’t because you won’t be convinced. woo hoo implies that the evidence is there, implies that it is good evidence but not gonna show it.
“The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God’.” Bible says people who don’t believe in bible are fools. Boy is that convincing.
From the book of Kanatalope: The fools said in their hearts and in the blogs that there is all this invisible stuff in the garage and it is true, but it wasn’t true; it was all made up bullshit.
Still waiting on why we need god to know stuff? Mebee this is some of that somistiphicated theology?
I guess presuppositionalism is attractive to some particularly stupid religious believers because it requires absolutely no thought to follow the presuppositionalist script. I doubt, however, that it’s a useful argumentative strategy in the long run, whether offensive or defensive: it’s too obviously merely the continued repetition of an assertion in the childish belief that this makes it true.
Christian terrorist scum.
Whether I would worship God if I became convinced that it exists would depend on what you mean by “worship.” If it involves blind obedience and automatic approval then no, I wouldn’t. And shouldn’t.
Because I’m not good enough — not knowing enough, not wise enough, not perfect enough — to assume that I couldn’t have made a mistake and God is not as knowing, wise, perfect, or godly, as I thought. I could be wrong. I could be wrong about God never being wrong.
The chink in the armor of faith is our own fallibility. Worship assumes we KNOW we got God right. Even God could not make us perfect enough to KNOW this, no matter how perfect it was.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances with Trolls OM
Are you avoiding the question?
We knew you were being sarcastic, but God has charged us to tell the truth.
“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, lest he be wise in his own eyes.”
– Proverbs 26:4-5
At their root, yes. This would be the point at which you would triumphantly cry, “Ah-hah! But no one witnessed abiogenesis, so clearly God did it!” (The irony in using the argument that the requirement for physical evidence necessitates God, for whom there is none, would probably escape you.)
But yes. Physical evidence is required, at some level, to validate claims. Einstein claimed that objects of sufficient mass could noticeably alter the path of light. This was a theory based on mathematics until it was proven by experimentation.
Evolution, while possessed of several similar experiments in its own favour, is slightly different, in that it follows logically from previous established facts of nature. Genetic inheritance, mutation, and selection are sufficient to make evolution a foregone conclusion.
hotshoe,
How do you know for sure that I am ugly and how was I bashing the Bible?
Exactly.
Certainty is over-rated. Indeed the idea of certainty is arguably responsible for more harm and suffering than any other, and for the relative betterment of all humanity, really ought to be expunged abandoned.
CONFIDENCE is what science deals in, and it is what matters.
JoyG, why is your buddy avoiding the question about rendering unto Caesar?
@220:Catromancer said: “Everything I, and everyone else, knows is not certain. Because we CAN’T be absolutely certain.”
Cat – can you not see how this statement is self-contradictory? Can you not see how this statement is logically impossible? That is why we start with the presupposition that God exists. Nothing else makes sense.
So I’ll fix it: “Everything I, and everyone else, knows is not certain. Because we CAN’T be absolutely certain, probably.”
You win the internets today, Janine.
Shit, these godbots are ignorant, stupid, and proud of it. Dunning-Kruger anyone?
I answered the question above. Look for it.
Why are you avoiding presenting any evidence? You don’t have any?
I would acknowledge that it is true.
I would embrace it only if it demonstrated that it was morally and ethically worthy of being embraced.
Which, in its current form today, it is not.
We know that it is not, because it makes the necessarily false claim that Jesus was “wholly God and wholly man” or “true God and true man”. Since “God” and “man” have incompatible attributes, nothing can be both. So the hypothetical postulated cannot be the case, and there is no question to answer.
robert, you lackwit:
You’re starting with the presupposition that God (whatever THAT is) exists because God allows you to rend a huge gaping hole in logical consistency. Once you allow a god to wiggle its way into your arguments, you’ve given up any requirements for logic. Gods are allowed to do whatever they want, logical or not; so far as I can tell, that’s their main use — to allow people like you to ignore evidence, and claim that *something* outside of the known has decreed something about the world.
It’s ridiculous, childish, and patently stupid.
Kant: “So I’ll fix it: “Everything I, and everyone else, knows is not certain. Because we CAN’T be absolutely certain, probably.”
I agree. That makes sense now :)
MJM: “We knew you were being sarcastic, but God has charged us to tell the truth.”
What a coincidence. You happen to be posting to same thread as Eric Hovind, who continues the creationist bilge of Kent Hovind, including a variety of desperate, pre-debunked distortions of a wide swath of science for the sole purpose of making it seem like the Bible can still be interpreted literally. Perhaps you could convince him to be a good Christian and tell him to stop spreading lies about science in the name of Christianity. That would be just grand.
And yet I cannot seem to care.
So, god told you to come here and toss about inane quotes and questions?
Damn but I am convinced I want to hang with you. So much fun and so intellectually stimulating.
As I stated before, anyone who in convinced by this clown show really should not be a regular reader here. And you clowns deserve them.
“Hi. My name is Kent Hovind.”
kevinsedore @ 14;
Don’t quote bible passages as if they amount to arguments. It achieves nothing, clutters up the thread, and will likely get you banned for insipidy…
… Actually, on second thoughts, go right ahead and quote from your book of fairy tales all you like…
@ 16;
We can be persuaded by scientifically credible evidence, yes, but since you have something of a deficit in the credible evidence department, this hardly helps you or your mythology much.
@ 44;
Citation needed. You can’t just make a bald assertion like that and expect us to accept it. Where is your evidence? If we define ‘knowing’ something as an example of the ability to accrue information, then on what basis do you claim that any deity in general, and specifically your god in particular, is a prerequisite?
—————————————————————-
JoyG @ 18;
That is quite the assertion. Care to provide any evidence to back it up? Let’s start simply, shall we? Why don’t you begin by demonstrating how this god construct of yours is essential to the scientific method, the processes of gathering and interpreting data, and the mechanisms of rational thought. Remember, cognitive faculties could easily have evolved without a deity, so ‘goddidit’ is not an answer.
@ 28;
Because unevidenced claims can be dismissed without evidence.
Because proving a negative is extremely difficult, especially when the proposed subject is allegedly conveniently undetectable, and thus the burden of proof, as per Russell’s Teapot, rests upon the party making the assertion of the existence of the phenomenon in question (that would be you).
Because without evidence, the Null Hypothesis must stand in any rational discourse.
@ 42;
It is a mode of thought, a learned behavior. As to the physiological ability to use the brain to reason, well that is a function of evolved neurochemistry and brain physiology – no god(s) required.
—————————————————————-
KST @ 19;
Secular humanism.
@ 47;
You and your co-religionists keep making this assertion, but none of us are going to take it seriously until you provide some evidence.
Incidentally, assuming your answer in the premise is a common logical fallacy known as begging the question.
—————————————————————-
AJ @ 20;
No, all conclusions are tentaive and subject to revision should the evidence change. It is the theists who believe in ‘The Truth(TM)’. However, the theists provide no evidence at all, preferring shallow semantic games and confirmation bias, and this is insufficient to cause us to re-evalutae anything.
—————————————————————-
robert635732 @ 21;
So, in addition to believing in an invisible magic man in the sky, you also claim that your religion offers supernatural mind-reading abilities, I take it?
@ 33;
Tone trolling is not appreciated here. If the environment at Pharyngula bothers you so much, why not leave?
—————————————————————-
JD @ 24;
Dowty was using his position of authority as an officer to proselytyse to junior service personnel, and specifically to target non-christians. That is a clear abuse of power and runs contrary to the US constitutional arrangements.
It is also obvious that you are arguing in bad faith. If a hypothetical atheist or non-christian officer had behaved in this manner, I sincerely doubt that you would adopt the same position.
Evolutionary theory is a well evidenced sceintific theory, not a religious creed. It is taught because it is the explanation that best fits the available evidence. Should that evidence change, the theory will be adapted or, if this is impossible, it will be cast aside, much like Lemarkism has been. As of now, however, it is the most credible, rational explanation on the evidence. It would be irresponsible to ignore thgat fact and teach unevidenced mythology in its stead.
—————————————————————-
SyeTenb @ 26;
In what conceivable way are photons relevant to this discussion?
@ 29;
The Null hypothesis. There is no evidence for god, and the ‘god of the gaps’ argument is intellectually risible. The burden of proof lies on the party making the positive assertion. You claim god exists, if you want us to take your asserttion seriously, provide some credible evidence. Pascal’s wager, confirmation bias and personal ‘revelation’ based arguments need not apply.
@ 34;
It was not an argument, merely an observation. I know many of the regular commentators here, and I can tell you that the commentariat is not going to be swayed by the feeble apologia presented on this thread.
@ 40;
Without evidence for this god of yours, such a statement may fairly be characterised as delusional. It is one thing that you have just stated that you act on what essentially amounts to voices in your head, it is quite another to try to claim that this experience is universal. You are not a mind reader, and your ‘personal revelation’ does not amount to evidence of anything, any more than a muslim’s ‘personal revelation’ is evidence for Allah.
@ 43;
The efficacy of the scientific method is demonstrated every day by the fact that our technology works. God is a non-parsimomious addition to rational explanations for phenomena. Our position concerns itself with the evidence, not Bronze Age mythology.
Shall I reverse the question? On what basis do you trust your belief in an unevidenced sky fairy? (Please respond without being viciously circular or by saying ‘goddidit’ or any variation of ‘you have to be saved to understand’.)
@ 48;
There are plenty of atheists still here, you know. That said, we do have lives outside this blog. In any case, I find it immeasurably cute that you think that the laughably feeble apologia on this thread somehow amounts to ‘the going getting tough’ for atheists.
No evidence, no cigar my friend.
Yes, you little cutie. We know you start with the presupposition that God exists. You don’t have to tell us your little secret, really, it was no secret from us.
And then you stomp your little feet and clench your little fists in anger when we dare to poke fun at you for your silly presupposition.
Tee hee.
The question was not directed toward me and I will leave it for them to respond to, but what do you have to fear in answering mine?
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.
I have enjoyed conversing with all of you. Once again, I leave you with the question, how do you know what you know? How can you be certain of anything?
re 58:
“He told us”
Unlikely. You mean someone wrote it, claiming God said it.
We can be certain about analytical truths involving abstractions because we control all the factors by defining them. But the minute we try to apply these logical rules to the real world we can be in error. We aren’t in control of the universe.
Neither are people who believe in God. And even if God exists it doesn’t give you, personally, control of the universe.
Do you think we’re going to skip over that problem just because you seem to be skipping over that problem?
It’s as if you think rational justification is a form of “having permission.”
KST (#200)
If you could prove god’s existence, then we would be convinced god exists. Worshiping or not worshiping such a monster wouldn’t even come into it because it’s an entirely separate question. I mean, I don’t deny that liver-eating flukes exist just because they’re horrifying little beasties whose very existence makes me shudder to think of.
This perfectly illustrates the shortcomings of the military hierarchy, subordinates often have very little chance to defend themselves to their superiors.
No, it is not self-contradictory; evidently, you do not know what the term “self-contradictory” means. If I make an assertion, I do not thereby commit myself to the claim that that assertion is certain. To do so would be to claim that there logically could be nothing that could cause me to change my mind. That is quite distinct from claiming that it is true. That you are too stupid to understand this, is really no-one’s problem but your own.
Esteleth,
We start with God He is not our ending point neither does He have to be proved. Even you believe that He is real “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of man that hold the truth in unrighteouness; Because that which may be know of God is manifest in them; for God hath shown it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the Creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuss: Because that, when they knew God they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” Romans 1:18-22
If you were given evidence that God is real to your satisfaction would you worship Him?
You are a fucking liar. You were not conversing.
Hey guys, good talking. I hope when i get a chance to get back on that you have some honest answers to how you know what you know to be true. I know because i know Someone Who Does Know!!!
Later guys!!
Sorry, you’re gonna have to be more specific than that. I’m assuming you don’t mean everything that’s in the bible, as parts of that contradict each other.
That being the case, you’ll have to lay out exactly what bits of the book are true or not, and then back that up. That will help settle some important questions.
If you can’t tell me what you mean by Christianity, you really can’t expect me to have an answer as to my acceptance of it – or lack thereof, regardless of truth claims.
“even if we could prove God’s existence to you, then you would not worship Him”
Let’s suspend reality for a second and pretend that you can. Why do you think that a violent, bloodthirsty, genocidal, jealous psychopath like your god deserves worship?
Why would it have created imperfect beings and demanded that they live up to impossible arbirary sandards, just so that it could torture them forever for not doing so, if it were not a cruel, sadistic psychopath?
Why would it have created the universe many orders of magnitude larger and older than was neccessary?
Why is it so obsessed with our sex lives?
Why would it have sent a human incarnation of itself to earth to be tortured and killed to atone for the ‘sins’ of mankind?
For those posting bible passages, I’m sure that reading the bible with an open mind is one of the most certain ways of creating an atheist. Go and have a read. Try to see it for what it is, a millenia-old text, written by men to meet their own ends, full of mistranslations, changed and altered over the millenia to suit whomever was in charge at the time. It is a text meant to control you. To keep you stupid and ignorant and fearful. To keep those in power powerful. Go and read it, and see it for what it is.
Can someone tell me why, FFFSM sake, why can’t we know anything without somekind of god interfering? That just doesn’t make any sense to me at all. I could see how we would need god to NOT know anything: because if god wanted it 2 = 5, tides could come and go if there was no moon or even with a moon there could be no tides or the tides could work independent of the moon or whatever random magic thing could happen, monkeys could fly out of the odd butt, –
BUT I don’t get why we need divine intervention to KNOW anything???
“You place to much faith in your magic!”
-Auron, FinalFantasy X
I will give you a serious answer to that. No. Why would an all powerful being need to get affirmation from someone like me. How could what I do make one bit of difference to it’s existence.
Amphiox:
QFT.
This is true to the point I would submit science is merely a tool for evaluating the statistical likelihood a truth-claim is congruent with reality. I would further submit we do this on an ad-hoc basis, to varying degrees, for everything we evaluate as we go through life — science is merely a formalization of the process we use every day.
Whether it’s confidence that our vehicle will start in the morning, or that our spouse reciprocates our love, our confidence is based on observation and history. That relates to what The Artful Nudger said:
While speculation is fun and all, it’s observable reality that is the final arbiter of Truth.
That’s why it’s hard for me to take folks like KST and MJM seriously. They ignore the very thing that allows them to survive — the evaluation of truth claims against observable reality — simply to feel good about some obviously mythical god, with no more objective evidence than the Greeks had for Zeus.
Possibly, but we have a methodology that allows us to determine to a HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE that we are not.
Not completely. But we have a methodology that allows us to determine to a HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE that it is.
We prefer knowledge instead
What do you know that is not certain?
That for which a HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE can be demonstrated.
Possibly.
I might do so out of adoration, or out of cowardice.
I might refuse to do so, based on what he advocated, and what he actually did, and how closely these matched each other.
So far, he has not been proved to my satisfaction. You may begin to do so at any time.
Now that I have answered your question, please be kind enough to answer mine:
If you had no good evidence that god is real, would you still worship him?
AJK,
Why don’t you offer arguments not quotations?
I used to think as you do, blindly following the demented ramblings of Bronze Age tribesmen, insisting on the utter inerrancy and truth of that miserable collection of shit (except, of course, when it was convenient to ignore them, like every part of Leviticus except the part about gay people).
Then I turned eleven. I am not a child. I am an adult. I have a mind (given to me by evolution) and I fucking use it. Use yours!
Oh, and LEARN TO FUCKING READ. Read the last sentence in my post @221. I am not an atheist.
Haven’t read them all yet, but really want to answer KTS @76:
And if I knew it was the God of the Bible? The answer is easy. NO. Hell, no!! If I find myself before the God of the Bible on Judgement Day I will spit right in his eye. And go to hell where all the decent people will be.
But the important thing is that Major Dowty is breaking the law and getting away with it. Why should that be possible?
Why is it against the law? Well, if you can, imagine Major Dowty was a Muslim and behaved in the same way. Would Christian subordinates have a complaint?
The truth is that many Christians think Major Dowty’s behavior is despicable and have said so. Why haven’t you?
I would so love to be able to call this The One Hour Stupid but it lasted for about one hour and forty minutes.
Mac #253 wrote:
How do you know you know Someone Who Does Know?
And don’t beg the question.
At least when philosophy searches for rational ground we can all stand on it looks in areas where everyone else can see it.
AJK: If we gave you evidence that Christianity was self-contradictory, that most conceptions of the Christian God are either not good or nonsensical, and that there is no reason to believe in or worship the more watered down versions of “God”, would you be willing to become an atheist? Why do we need to assure four or five different people that “yep, if you made a sound case, I’d convert” when we have yet to hear that the same willingness to go where logic and evidence leads exists among the prepositionalist spewers?
So, would you? Would you go where the evidence leads? Or are you like all of those other Christians who are just so darned faithful that they proudly proclaim they would still be firm Bible-believers in the face of contradicting evidence?
If xianity was true, they wouldn’t have to lie all the time.
I should go back to christianity, you get to make shit up and pretend its a valid arguement. All your, how do you know??? crap can be turned right around. So what do you do, simply declare god exist and say its beyond question. Not terribly convincing.
I’m happy to answer your little gotcha question “would you worship him?” (which is of course just an avenue to open up more soplisitic wanking on the topic or morals)
No, I would not worship him. I would not glorify a being that demands I hate, and quite literaly stone people for who they love. I will not worship a being the tells women their only role is that of baby factory. I will not worship a being who condemns people people to enternal suffering for not kissing his ass.
BUT I don’t get why we need divine intervention to KNOW anything???
Kantalope,
Well let me ask you how you know anything yourself to be true and real? Do you know everything? If we even knew 1% of everything, which would be stretching it, how do you know that something in the other 99% doesn’t contradict something you know? I hope you will think about these things. TTYL
Intelligent and couragous people say it out loud.
Hee hee. Way to miss the point. In a discussion about “certainty” and “evidence”, you really think that I’m claiming to KNOW FOR SURE that you’re ugly ? Jesus Haploid Christ, YOU”RE DUMB. And I say that strictly on the evidence of your own words there. If you’ve got evidence to the contrary, feel free to produce it … any time … like now … or else we’ll continue to go with – not “certainty” -but a reasonable conclusion from the existing evidence.
Oops, sorry, I forgot that some christers don’t know what bible-basher means. You should, though, since it’s your personal identity we’re talking about. A bible-basher is a person, like you, who uses the bible as a weapon to bash others (other christians of the “wrong” sects, non-believers, and believers in other religions).
Too bad for you that your bible is such an ineffective weapon. But good for us. We don’t have to fear actual harm, we can just point and laugh and say you’re ugly.
OK, crazy people, I’m going to let you play here, but I’m not going to let you use my blog to spam your creationist sites. SyeTenB, don’t use your site url when you comment: it’s blocked. Similarly, anyone else who starts peddling their pathetic little websites will get blocked, too.
Have fun, cretins.
Y’all keep asking us if we’d worship your god if we found incontrovertible proof that it exists, and I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop: “Hey, I’ve got god right here in my back pocket (sorry for putting you in with the dirty handkerchief, buddy).” Yet oddly enough, that proof never materializes. The best you can do is say “He told me!” and sling around quotes from a 2000+ anthology of incoherent myths and lectures.
You really have to work on your game.
Indeed, the scientific method is innate and instinctive in humans, (our confidence in this is based on, among other things, behavioral studies of infants).
But like all evolved innate mechanisms, it isn’t perfect and has limits. The formal scientific method was a cultural development that people created as their social environment and technical power increased to the point where those limitations to their innate instincts for scientific thinking meant that the consequences of their mistakes became sufficiently frequent and damaging to warrant some attempt at amelioration.
Our modern, formal scientific method is basically an intelligently designed (partly) superstructure tacked on top of our individual innate evolved instincts for assessing confidence in truth claims against observable reality, aimed at counteracting the imperfect biases inherent in the evolved system.
Religion is an intelligently designed (partly) superstructure tacked on top of our individual innate evolved instincts for assessing confidence in truth claims against observable reality, aimed at deliberately exploiting the imperfect biases inherent in the evolved system, in order to benefit the few at the expense of the many.
So, we’ve established for AJK that we have some folks here who would acknowledge Christianity as being true if it were proven to them.
Should I get my hopes up that AJK will then move on to the next obvious step and start proving it?
I hope folks will join me as I request:
C’mon, AJK! Lay it on us!
Don’t hold back – show us all of the airtight, super-convincing, totally evidence-supported argument that convinced you in the first place!
There are souls, hell-bound atheist souls, right here, ready for you to save them. If you walk away, you are condemming them to eternal torment! Surely that would be an evil act?
Saddle up, AJK – don’t let yourself go soft now – tell us what proof convinced you. I’m listening.
Evidence is what is required. Got any conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity and mythical/fictional babble? I didn’t think so…
PZ, they withdrew already.
Was there anyone who was converted because of this display?
I was! I is done seen the light! Praise Jeeeebus!
Oh, wait. No, that was the sun coming out here in Vancouver for the first time all day. No, they’re still droning idiots.
No. But it was morons like this that started me on my way out of xianiity.
Well, I’m more convinced than ever of the utter bankruptcy of their position, does that count?
We don’t – we can, however, make useful models that can be falsified or confirmed through further use. This process, when formalized, is called science.
I suspect not.
It might.
It often does.
The process of finding this out is called science.
We do.
It’s one reason we demand evidence for claims of religion.
Which you refuse to give us.
Wow, that all happened fairly fast. For some reason the trolls have been very active this week. I am somewhat envious of those of you who got to smack down on the godbots though. lucky!
Guess they got bored with spamming the same three questions and random Bible quotes over and over. Or, alternatively …
AJK
Fuck off, you putrid little shit.
Do you think you’re scoring points for ingoring what Esteleth wrote:
AJK, you’ve shown yourself to be nothing but a christian terrorist.
Absolutely not. That lazy, worthless, murderous thug deserves nothing but my spit in his eye and my knee in his groin.
Anteprepro: Monty Python always seems to have a skit to fit the situation…
I was, All Hail Odin, All-Father, Gallows’ Burden, Raven God..
Oh wait, that wasn’t what they wanted was it?
Aww, I go away to watch Eggheads on the TV for half an hour and come back to find that all the repeat-without-comprehension trolls have been scared away. Still, that’s how troll encounters usually play out I suppose. Perhaps the drums of mordor called them all back home for their dinner.
Mind you, even basic reading skills seem beyond most of them. I’ve never been called a Catromancer before. Does that mean I tell the future by interpreting the behaviour of felines? Sounds fun…
It’s also been kind of fun moonlighting on here – my usual haunt at RD.net rarely gets trolls of this kind anymore. You know, the let-off-steam-by-punching-clueless-morons kind. “Sport” as I like to call them. Thank you very much PZ for putting on such amusing entertainment. I look forward to the next time your Troll Pit is open for business.
So I’m trying to come up with stats for YHWH (or whatever the fuck his name is) using Deities and Demigods Supplement Rule book. I’ve got most of the salient abilities and domains picked just trying to figure out what classes he’d have and what his alignment should be.
As far as alignment goes it seems like an obvious LE, but I can see a semi decent case for LN. For me there isn’t much difference between the two alignments as far as the consequences they have towards worshippers so it doesn’t so much matter to any potential campaign.
But classes! Thumbing through the bible I can’t find any hints as to what type of deity this would be. The picture I’m trying to work with is some bearded mage but that doesn’t seem to fit. Should I dtich that and go with something more ominous like an Olde One style horror? I had hoped to emphasize how ‘human’ god was but maybe making him less defined (a reflection of his follower’s biases and hates) might sere the same overall point.
Avoiding suggests fear. I was ignoring it.
If there was sufficient evidence that there exists a ‘God’ – who created the universe in two different ways, who saw fit to establish photosynthetisizing vegetation before creating the sun, who claims that insects have four legs when they clearly don’t, who whimisically sends bears to tear apart children for calling a man bald, who mandates genocide, slavery, and rape – I would agree that he does exist. I would also conclude that he makes Forrest Gump look like a genius, makes Rip Van Winkle look alert, and makes Hitler, Stalin, Ivan the Terrible and Pol Pot all look like choirboys, and unless he were to brainwash me (and then what’s the fucking point?) I could have no admiration for him and instead only sheer blinding hatred. You would, too, if he actually did appear to you and do all those things before your eyes.
Oh, and you haven’t even come close to providing any of that evidence anyway, so it’s kind of moot.
Heh. Maybe I should, just for a laugh. Running rings around with a philosophy I don’t even believe in would make me feel good.
hmmmmm.
If there is no God, then where do shitty arguments come from?
See? All these shitty arguments prove that God exists.
JoyG:
Certain? As I can’t be certain I’m not a program running in a game of Civilization, I can’t be certain of anything at all.
So I take the default route. I assume the world I observe is objective reality. Otherwise, I lack not only certainty, but any metric whatsoever to judge what is real and what is not. I have nothing on which to base knowledge at all. Am I certain it’s objectively real? No. But I am certain that if the world I observe is not objectively real, I’d have no way to evaluate what is real.
If you start with the assumption the world we perceive is objectively real, you can employ the scientific method to determine the likelihood that a truth-claim represents observable reality. Due to the weakness of inductive reasoning (as outlined by David Hume, for example), I still can’t be certain of anything. But I can have (as Amphiox pointed out) a measured degree of confidence in truth-statements. For example, I have confidence that approaches certainty that a hammer dropped in the air on earth will fall to the ground. I further have confidence that approaches certainty that my next breath will give me oxygen, and my next meal will provide me sustenance. I am also confident, though to a lesser degree, that I will not die in the next 24 hours.
But there is no guarantee for any of that.
This means I can never be certain that a god does not exist. However, I can have confidence that approaches certainty that a god does not exist. I can get even closer to certainty that the Christian god does not exist. I can do this by examining the attributes and actions ascribed to that god, and compare them against objective reality.
It’s really as simple as that. I have a basis by which to judge my confidence in truth-claims. This is a self-correcting process, as others are also evaluating those truth-claims against the very same objective reality. When they discover physical evidence that modifies the confidence level of a truth-claim, they can present that evidence, and I will be forced to modify my confidence level. it’s as simple as all that.
Religious assertions, however, are just that. There’s no objective metric useful for judging a religious truth-claim. And were those religious truth-claims intersect objective reality (say, in historic claims such as the Biblical flood), they are no longer simply religious claims, but claims about objective reality. These are often proven wrong (say, in historic claims such as the Biblical flood).
So while I have a useful tool for helping me navigate what is most likely true, you do not. All you have is fervently held beliefs. As there is no metric to ascertain the confidence we should put in those beliefs, they are, for all practical purposes, false.
While I can’t be certain, I at least have a method for determining how close to certain I am. And you are left with fantasy.
“So I’m trying to come up with stats for YHWH (or whatever the fuck his name is) using Deities and Demigods Supplement Rule book. I’ve got most of the salient abilities and domains picked just trying to figure out what classes he’d have and what his alignment should be.”
Why not just make him into whatever kind of deity you like. It’s what the christians have been doing for millennia after all…
These guys are pretty pathetic. Some one (Eric, perhaps) told them that they could get atheists’ goats if they kept screeching “How do you know that?” while either ignoring the responding “How do YOU?” or saying “The Bible tells me so.”
Well our goats are all still in the pen while yours merrily burn and frankly you guys are pretty boring. There is nothing there to sharpen our teeth on. Nothing with enough friction to make our coats sniny. Boring.
Let me ask, in case any of you have a single set of neurons that are capable of honesty: It seems to me that you worship the Bible, not God. How is your behavior towards the Bible not the worship of an idol?
Logical arguments are logically impossible without God.
if this were true, then the validity of logical arguments would be contingent upon the existence of God, and would therefore not be absolutes. Logic can only exist if it is independent and not contingent.
The very existence of logic demonstrates that it is not dependent upon a deity, whether such a deity exists or not.
Damn, late to the weenie roast.
SyeTenb says:
How do you know it was him? Were you there?
Janine
Perfection. I love you.
Amphiox:
I had not considered religion to be the direct logical inverse of science before. I had thought it simply a rationalization, the illogical extension of the desire to know, even in the face of continued ignorance.
But you’re right — as soon as we move beyond personal credulity into organized religion, it is the exact opposite of science.
Your two sentences effectively sum up why science and religion cannot co-exist. I’ve known science and religion were in conflict. I’d just never seen such a concise explanation why.
So… what, that was a lunch break for these guys?
(Central Time, maybe?)
They stopped preaching to go back to their jobs?
Aw, come on, goddists, which is more important: your employment or saving souls?
Really, I’m asking the question here: based on your actions, what’s more important to you?
And, based on your response, how seriously do you intend to be taken?
Think carefully before answering. Or is that an unfair stipulation?
Julian: (Assuming Third edition D & D) Well, here are my cases for a few classes (note: Jesus would be YHWH’s avatar, so some of the class ideas are based on Jesus, since they should basically be the same character).
Bard: Inspires people with sermons, uses low level magic. Is charismatic to get people to obey him, despite being an utter bastard.
Cleric: He’s his own number one fan. Also: Uses Resurrection and healing magic. Paladin might work if you want more of war-god feel.
Ranger: If you want to go with more of violent, hermit loner take. If you think you could see YHWH hunting people for sport, go with ranger.
Rogue: Jesus has definitely a bit of trickster in him.
Sorcerer: Wizards use Intelligence, which I don’t think YHWH should actually have much of (should go with Wisdom instead). Sorcerer is better, uses the charisma I mentioned with bard, and doesn’t need to reference books for magic, and books don’t suit YHWH (unless he is having someone else write one).
Aristocrat: He is the King of Kings, Lord, whatever. I could picture God being a super-powered epic level king, sitting on his throne and ordering a few wars to liven things up.
Commoner: Well, Jesus was basically a magical pauper, so just pump enough levels into him and God himself might fit the bill as well. Level 100 commoner, or something around there.
So, my suggestion: Epic level Cleric/Aristocrat/Bard. Should probably be a greater deity. Alternatively: If you have Call of Cthulhu D20 version, take a shoggoth, max out its HD, and turn that it into a greater deity. Either one would be an accurate portrayal, in my opinion.
AWWWWWW….I missed all the fun, working like a good girl. :-(
Anyway…IF I knew that some dude named Jesus really had existed, I might worship HIM. He was pretty laid back and reasonable.
But forget the Paulian crap and the OT god. Both of them were vicious jerks who hated women.
So, there you go, erichovind: maybe I’d worship Jesus. The way I worship air conditioning, electric garage door openers, heat in the winter, and my motorcycle. (Oh, and Steve Perry’s voice…[melts into a puddle on the floor])
But give over rational thought and a good life to irrational thought and living in fear of death? Nah. Keep your tools. I don’t want them.
Two questions for the god-botherers: Which god, and why yours rather than any of the others still in general use?
If you can give cogent answers, I’ll consider subscribing to your newsletter.
So, why is god necessary for logic to exist?
If god is necessary for logic to exist, and this god that invented logic is the same god that allegedly wrote the Bible, then why does the god in the bible behave so illogically?
And, to reiterate kantalope’s question, why is god necessary for humans to know things?
I know the things I know because I learned them, via my senses. Direct observation, or verbal, written, or symbolic communication.
Are you saying that your god invented direct observation and communication?
Even if that’s true, why is it necessary to have god around for humans to continue to use their faculties of observation and communication? Are you defining god as the property of humans to be able to exercise observation and communication? If so, then yes, it’s technically true that god is necessary for people to know things, but then you’re not talking about the god in the Bible anymore, you’re just assigning the word “god” to a couple of concepts that already have perfectly good labels.
@ What a Maroon
It’s true. I also have met some pretty smart Christians who are clearly capable of reasoning and absorbing knowledge.
On the other hand, these people are frequently decried as being “not REAL Christians” by the likes of our current godbot infestation.
@janine
Their stupidity damaged so much of my brain that… oh man, I am convert… it hurts… Do you believe in absolute truth?
I call upon the babel fish to rid us of this nonsense.
1. Where does reason come from?
It’s called natural selection. Animals that could not grasp basic correlation and reason found survival rather difficult. Example: If an herbivore was not able to reason that certain plants don’t settle well in it’s stomach, it would continue eating poisonous plants effectively killing itself off, while the ones that could grasp some form of reasoning thrived.
Seriously you’re acting as if reasoning and logic are strictly human concepts.
2. Is it POSSIBLE that God exists?
Absolutely it’s possible. It’s possible that somewhere, out in space, there is a tree that grows fully functional Model Ts. It is possible that if you throw a toaster, some milk, and a used diaper into a blender that you will produce a baby koala. It’s possible that this is all just a dream, or that everything I’ve experienced in my entire life has been nothing but electrical signals fed into my brain, siting in a jar floating in formaldehyde, by a giant super computer. Nothing is impossible. However, if one is to separate reality from fiction, we have to work within a realm of plausibility.
The existence of any earthly god, that I am aware of, is much too provincial and contradictory, (not only with our discoveries in nature but in and of itself,) that the plausibility of any such critter existing is nil and should be treated as such.
“why aren’t evolutionists wrong in preaching evolution?”
Is there a new religion called evolution? Is there someone actually preaching evolutionism? Where do you guys get this stuff?
Arguments like this are what make you look stupid.
SyeTenb wrote
God told David Berkowitz, aka the Son of Sam, to commit murder. Every year, hundreds of people claim “God told me to do it” as their legal defense in open court to explain why they committed rape, murder and other atrocities.
Do you really want to put yourself in that kind of crowd, using that kind of excuse?
They quit when they got their rocks off and left us here, unsatisfied. Typical.
No, rangers educate the public about the resource, protect the resource, keep the visitor reasonably safe, and collect fees. That’s what I do, anyway.
Having crapped all over the chessboard, the pigeons flew home to celebrate their victory.
“….Major Jonathan Dowty, who has a blog called the “Christian Fighter Pilot”….”
I’ve never heard of anyone better qualified to take a SAM-7 up the jetpipe for his country. Glad my wingman wasn’t like that.
*sigh*
Why do I always get to these things too late?
Back on topic. I think a
would be a really bad idea.
The frontal lobes of the brain, as I’m sure you learned in biology class.
All these Christians say their ability to reason comes from their god, and then they don’t have the good grace to use it.
Or, maybe he gave them defective units.
Father Ogvorbis: “No, rangers educate the public about the resource, protect the resource, keep the visitor reasonably safe, and collect fees. That’s what I do, anyway.”
So, no dual wielding or divine magic then? This day just keeps getting more depressing. Next thing you know, someone will come along and tell me that the FSM doesn’t exist and was just a satire of religion! I can’t take it! Religionists aren’t the only ones that need their comforting delusions and a selective inability to tell truth from fiction! *Rocking in fetal position*
Anyway: Do you know Smokey the Bear or Ranger Smith?
Also: Yahweh is DEFINITELY not suited to being that kind of ranger :) He tends to let bears maul teenagers, after all.
Anyone else of the opinion that many of these new folks were puppets?
WTF does that even mean?
I had 11 minutes for lunch, and my eyes got all full of stupid. Spanks, trolls. Spanks a lot.
[meta] Mr. Fire’s 123 was almost worth the metaphysical uncertainty that I now feel after all of the thought-provoking questions posed by erichovind and his minions.[/meta]
These trolls do not feed on bread alone, but on every lump of shit that plops out of the ass of Eric Hovind.
PZ would have let us know if that were the case. As it stood, the comments, inane as they were, came in too fast to be one person.
Faith is a personal matter. Some people place their faith in a deity (or deities) and some place it in science.
My point really is that people tend to believe different things according to environmental influences, whether that’s other people around them or whether it’s from their own observations isn’t really the issue. We’re all free to choose what we want to believe, and we’re all free to share our opinions on the matter. Forcing an opinion on someone else is wrong.
People can no more prove that God exists as they can disprove it. It’s essentially the argument of if a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one around to hear it, did it make a sound?
I am not going to put my faith into something I can’t verify myself. Quoting the Bible is not proof of God, it is simply proof that you are able to read and quote a book written by other people.
While many religious people may argue that science is proof that God exists, it is not. Science is simply proof that people are able to make observations and apply logic to specific situations.
The people on here arguing that the ability to reason is proof alone of God, again it is not. There are a great number of people incapable of reasoning which by the same token is proof that God does not exist.
Complaints can result in a less-than-stellar fitness report, and that pretty much blows a hole in the bottom of a military career. So it’s worth doing. If you can make any officer be an annoyance to their superiors, it’s going to trickle down all over them.
This is important to understand if you’ve been in the military and decide NOT to make a career of it. I was in and within 3 months of enlisting I knew I wasn’t going to stick around. So, then you can go around hammering nails into people’s tires with impunity, as long as you can withstand whatever blowback you catch until deros.
I doubt it would bother SyeTenb, who is evidently a psychopath, as he denies that genocide is wrong in itself (see #134). About what one would expect from a follower of convicted thief and liar Kent Hovind.
So why have you all been telling lies?
Something (like science) that is based on objective evidence and observation does not require “faith” Nice try conflating two completely different concepts, my post-modernist friend, but it doesn’t work on anyone with a brain.
termi8tor:
And some people put their faith in gravity, and others in their ability to fly naked and unassisted.
What’s your point?
Chigau writes:
It might not be a bad idea if they were, say, being used to assault Atlantis. “Here! Each of you grab your cinder-blocks and forrwwaaaard-harch!”
Well, no, in the same way you can’t disprove that there’s a city of humans living on the surface of Saturn. But if I’m going to claim there is, the burden of proof is on me.
Define sound.
You don’t need to place faith in science. We know science works because we have evidence that it works. You posted this comment from a computer, that sent it through a network of computers so we all could read it. You’re probably not paralyzed from polio and your mother probably didn’t die in childbirth. If science didn’t work, none of that would be possible.
Some of us don’t have faith in anything, and as far as I can tell that’s the only rational way to think.
@ Anteprepro
Cleric I suppose it’ll have to be but I don’t see G-d as any kind of bard, ranger or rogue. Bards require to much of an individuality absent in much of Christianity and defninitley not in the Bible. Ranger just doesn’t seem to fit outside of a warden nature scenario (although maybe it’s just my lack of imagination). And rogue is to dependant on craft and skill for someone who spent his days waiting for things to just happen.
Sorcerer would fit but then there’s the faith’s hostility towards witchcraft…
I’m probably just going to make him a level 20 Cleric, a fucton of outsider HD and add some unique special abilities. It’ll be a while before any PC’s can dream of fighting anyway. Lots of time to work things out.
I’ve never known a drive-by group trolling to start and stop in such a synchronized way. It’s impressive, really. It could almost be the work of a higher power…
Nah.
To the christians:
Adorable undetectable purple aliens control human governments. The aliens are quarrelsome and thus human governments are often at war. However, if you give the aliens’ human representatives money, status and power, they will ask the aliens to be less quarrelsome. I know this because the aliens favor me and place this information in my mind.
An undetectable supreme being created a world in six days. The supreme being is vain, vengeful, and cruel, so it endorsed genocide, slavery, sexism and homophobia. However, if you give this undetectable supreme being’s human representatives money, status, and power, they will communicate to the supreme being and ask it to intercede beneficially to those who worship the supreme being. This knowledge was obtained from those whom the supreme being favors by placing the information into their minds.
Neither one of these arguments can be disproved. They can’t be disproved because both the adorable purple aliens and the supreme being are, by definition, undetectable. Ideas that by definition cannot be disproved are called logically unverifiable ideas. The number of logically unverifiable ideas is infinite. Since these kind of ideas cannot, by definition, by disproved, they get dismissed.
Knowing basic logic is a useful thing. You might want to consider that as you ineptly attempt to use logic to prove the existence of your logically unverifiable god idea.
I’ve always found it amusing that christians use the “you can’t disprove a god exists” as evidence for their idea of a god. If they understood logic and its consequences, they would understand that not being able to disprove their god idea is why it gets dismissed.
My high school teachers in the seventies were right when they said prop 13 (I’m in CA) would compromise public education. I don’t think anyone realized until the Hovinds in the world hit the internet just how badly public school education has been hit.
christian = logically compromised, which is a polite way of saying, christian = really stupid.
OK, that’s bullshit. I retired from the military just a couple of years ago, and if any officer were to “publicly attack and defame atheist and other non-Christian enlisted service members by name,” he or she would open themselves up to a clear EO and/or IG complaint and even a cause for a congressional inquiry. It would not automatically be insubordination for the enlisted person to defend themselves, it would all depend on how it was it done. If they screamed, “Hey, fuck you, you Christian asshole!” that probably would be, but if they said, “Excuse me, sir, but I don’t appreciate being singled out on the basis of my religious preference, and I request that you stop immediately,” or something like that, I highly doubt they would get in any trouble whatsoever. In fact, all the enlisted person would have to do is use the chain of command – go to the officer’s boss and say they are being harassed on the basis of religious preference, and I guarantee that it would stop right there. If the chain of command blows the enlisted person off, then you go to EO, the IG, etc. There are remedies for crap like this. This is not OK in the military today, in any branch.
Well, that certainly convinced me.
My entire family is born-again Christian. They can be a little overbearing but they are my family and I love them. They are the reason why I am uncomfortable with antagonizing people with strong faith. It could be my cousin on the other side of an anonymous godbot.
Today it hit me, it could be my cousin in all her petty, repetitive, “la-la-la I can’t hear you, god is my shield and btw, you will burn in hell forever and ever and I won’t. Nyah, nah!” glory.
All that is pretty damn annoying at Thanksgiving but at least it’s in-house. Between us, it’s expected and there’s enough history that our affection for each other is understood. She really does care enough about me to want to save my soul, even if she’s got to be a condescending ass to do it. It’s just what she does.
Today I saw how it looks when she does it to strangers. It’s ugly and embarrassing. I feel a little guilty for not nipping it in the bud by at least refusing to participate. This year’s holidays will be a bit uncomfortable.
#257 for the win!
That’s right!
hmmmm
Maybe a Conjurer? Summons storms, giant whales, bears, locusts… It fits. Just not that big a part of his portfolio. And it doesn’t take much to kill a bunch of commoners anyway. A normal wizard could’e done that without much fuss.
Holy…shit.
Yup. But we can do Environmental Impact Statements, Interpretive Plans, and a whole bunch of other paperwork which makes things run more smoothly. Does that count?
What? Paperwork is depressing? Well, the good news is our printer just went down (we need a new toner waste box) and won’t be able to get it until Monday (which is my Saturday).
Smokey is the United States Forest Service, part of the Department of Agriculture. And at fires, the professional wildland fire management people really aren’t that keen on Smokey with his disastrous ‘all fire is bad’ message which has created dangerous fuel loads in many forests. I do, however, work with a Ranger Smith. Two, in fact (though one is a curator, but she still wears the Park Ranger badge).
=========
Is it possible that this shitstorm of howdoyouknowism was an assignment for a class?
This was said above:
it clearly states in Scripture that there is only One God, Ephesians 4:6 “there is one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.” Romans 1:21 ”
I’ve always found it ridiculous that people jump to that conclusion. Finish reading your own line of BS, idiot. Logically all that says is that there is one specific god that embodies all those things. That doesn’t preclude the existance of other gods, just ones that don’t meet those exact criteria. Even “God” admits that there are other gods in the 10 Commandments: “You shall not worship any other gods before me.” Essentially saying: “there are other gods, but you’ll worship me first or I’ll burn down your entire city out of spite.”
My flabber is gasted. I have never actually “witnessed” fundie godbots aping (with apologies to apes)what they believe to be an argument with atheists (I led a sheltered existence in secular France).
The godbot “arguments” read like those of an obstreperous, stupid, wilfully ignorant child (with apologies to children).
Respect and Bon Courage to those in the Pharyngula Horde who live amongst these cretinous bible bashers.
you need to show them exactly how ugly it is when they do this.
It’s time.
termin8tor: I’m afraid that your logic is fallacious and obtuse. Please either use logical arguments, or stop commenting.
Yeah, synchronized. I wonder how many weeks Hovind and his dummies had to train to get that right.
“Pssst, pass it on, we’re all going to attack Pharyngula at 4:43 PM, Friday, November 4th, and then our squadron is going to leave the battle at exactly 6:22 PM. Set your watches”
“Sir, umm, sir, what’s a watch?”
usually?
actually, given the relative volumes, I’d say sound usually propagates through some sort of mineral or rock.
This same logic can be applied to debating the existance of God.
it sure can.
and here’s how:
You note we DO observe sound, even within a limited range based on our own senses.
We do NOT observe god, in any form, with any of our senses.
ever.
conclusion:
sound exists as energy waves.
whatever “god” is, it does not exist.
termin8tor:
Mmmm… no. I meant, “What’s your point with the false equivalence?” That’s why I quoted the bit that was a false equivalence. It seemed to have nothing to do with the rest of your post, which really didn’t seem to have much of a point, honestly.
Hey theists, all the philosophy and so called reasoning in the world doesn’t matter in the end. You can take “God says…” or “the bible says…” or “logic says….” in the world and apply them to God, Allah, Zeus, Xenu, and it is the exact same argument. How you do you know god exists? The bible. How do you know the bible is accurate? God wrote it. *facepalm*
The worst part is you KNOW there is no external force out there talking to you in the same way as you would talk to someone in front of you. You just have ‘feelings’ and ‘opinions’ and want to impose them on the rest of us when in reality… ‘god’ mysteriously always wants the same things the believer wants and is just an anthropomorphism of your own mind onto some imaginary being that no one has evidence for, and no one can agree on its characteristics. And here’s a tip: We don’t believe, so we don’t give a crap if you think we’re going to hell. It’s bogus. If you are concerned then do what you think is right, but leave the rest of us the f— alone already with your delusions.
Faith is belief without evidence, and just shows your own gullibility and reality wins over faith every time.
The minute you open your mouths with this Christ stuff you become immediately irrelevant to educated discussion about how anything actually is/works in the universe.
While you may say ‘Well I am not as bad as fundamentalist x,y,z’ and that YOU are the true christian, to us atheists who have shed our erroneous beliefs or have never had any childhood indoctrination done on us in the first place by a religion determined by simple chance of where we were born, you are simply two different shades of the same ugly color. You are both demonstrably wrong, except one of you is maybe more dangerous than the other.
Claiming absolute knowledge when you have none doesn’t allow you to pull out the ‘you don’t know everything therefore god’ argument. We don’t claim absolute knowledge, we claim provisional knowledge that can change based on new information, you know, evidence.
“Pssst, pass it on, we’re all going to attack Pharyngula at 4:43 PM, Friday, November 4th, and then our squadron is going to leave the battle at exactly 6:22 PM. Set your watches”
Run! It’s the Judean People’s Front!
Sorry.
No advice. Just best wishes for happy holidays, anyways.
Dammit! I missed the party.
Yikes, that was a whole boatload of godbots!
Why do you make this point? Are you suggesting that people should be allowed to spout nonsense, but that we should not criticize it? How does it follow from the fact that we are all free to share our opinions that we ought not call out bullshit she we see it.
calling a spade a spade is not the same thing as forcing my opinion on someone.
We understand sound because it is observable and measurable. I have a hard time understanding the concept of the skydaddy named God because there is nothing observable or measurable to give us info about it.
In that case, we can be pretty sure that a tree makes a sound when it falls, regardless of whether anyone was around to observe it. I’ll grant you that I don’t know if anyone’s done any formal scientific investigation into the subject, but certainly we know from our experience that when trees are observed to fall, they make a sound; from that, we can have a reasonable degree of certainty that an unobserved tree fall produces sound, as defined above. (We can come to the same conclusion based on our knowledge of the physics of sound production, but I’m not a physicist.)
All this is predicated on the assumption that said treefall occurs in the atmosphere of earth, or a similar environment. If it occurs in the vacuum of space, then no, it doesn’t make a sound.
Now, a question for you: if you can’t learn to use blockquote properly, will anyone read your posts?
should read “bullshit as we see it” not “bullshit she see it”. oops
Oh, look. I’m too busy to do much more than browse Pharyngula a bit — and the First Presuppositional Recursion Brigade (with a mascot of a braying jackass), commanded by Eric Hovind himself, airdrops in.
Well, that’s bait that even I cannot ignore.
That’s an interesting point. Think about that: proof of existence is not proof of the appropriateness of worship.
So we do not deny God from unrighteousness. After all, if we were convinced that God did exist, we might well still argue that was unworthy of worship.
Yes, yes, you keep saying that, but the assertion makes no sense at all.
You cannot derive sense from something as logically incoherent as saying that an invisible person with magical superpowers is the beginning of knowledge.
How do you know? How would you know if you were wrong?
But claiming to be true is obviously insufficient. You don’t believe everything that claims to be true; you apply standards of logic and evidence from the real world. Of course, you make exceptions for the bible; when it contradicts itself, or contradicts the evidence of the real world. This is you committing logical fallacy in order to ignore logical fallacy.
Why would God’s word contain logical fallacy, and require that people ignore those logical fallacies, thus committing additional logical fallacy?
Why does a basis of logic have to come from somewhere?
No, we start with the presupposition that truth exists, and that truths (and falses) can be combined via union and disjunction, and that various unions and disjunctions of truths and falses are themselves true or false.
Logic exists, but logic is not an invisible person with magical superpowers. And that is an equivalence that makes no sense at all.
I ask a simple question and all i get is this? “Kantalope,
Well let me ask you how you know anything yourself to be true and real? Do you know everything? If we even knew 1% of everything, which would be stretching it, how do you know that something in the other 99% doesn’t contradict something you know? I hope you will think about these things. ”
Ok I thought about it. It is gibberish. If I don’t know everything – therefore need to have god to know anything?
For people who have capital T Truth on their side, their arguments are for crap.
termin8tor:
Not all knowledge is opinion. In fact, “opinion” implies belief in a truth statement with no backing evidence — that is, just personal faith. Not everything is simply personal faith.
What about facts? For instance, should we let theists prohibit their children from medical help because they believe they must put their faith in God? If someone has faith in their ability to fly, should we allow them to jump off a tall building? If someone has faith that the end times are near and God is on our side, should we let them near the nuclear launch codes?
Were exactly do you draw the line between “opinion” and “knowledge of reality?” And exactly how do you stop someone’s beliefs from affecting other people?
Don’t any of you have day jobs? I missed all the fun again. There may never be such a herd of godbots in the wild again.
Some of us are at our day jobs…
This Biblical passage has always struck me as one of the most condescending, arrogant, smug things ever written. A book pushing a particular belief has a bit that says those who don’t believe are fools. I realize it’s preaching to the choir and if the goddists kept it for home consumption I wouldn’t complain about it. However a couple of times on this thread the goddists have trotted out this quote.
First of all, the goddists are ignoring “…whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Matthew 5:22 KJV) Another point is that I’m not going to accept a piece of self-serving propaganda. Finally, it’s all I can do from saying “and a hardy ‘fuck you’ to you” whenever someone quotes this verse at me.
’ll grant you that I don’t know if anyone’s done any formal scientific investigation into the subject, but certainly we know from our experience that when trees are observed to fall, they make a sound; from that, we can have a reasonable degree of certainty that an unobserved tree fall produces sound, as defined above.
Well, think about it?
how would you go about looking for evidence that a tree falling in the forest, unobserved by anything, including any type of recording instrument, produced sound?
why, you would look at the INDIRECT evidence, of course.
You would look for the effect of the soundwaves themselves on the surrounding environment.
and, yes, you would find those.
we do this kind of thing in science all the time; hell, much of science IS about measuring effects instead of causes.
a simple example:
fossils.
fossils are actually NOT direct evidence of anything.
In fact, they are indirect evidence that an animal or plant died in a particular spot. The indirect evidence being the mineral replacements of bones, or mineral casts left of the spots where the bodies lay.
there are literally billions of examples of indirect evidence for causal events we take for granted every day.
and yet, will ALL of both the direct evidence of causal events, AND the indirect evidence we have of their effects…
not ONE piece of direct OR indirect evidence of any effect of any defined deity has EVER been recorded or noted.
EVER.
to claim belief in a deity IS the height of illogic.
The fool says in his heart, there is no God.
The wise man says it out loud.
Snowshoe the Canuck:
Yeah. But we had a software release last night. That means I get to slack today. Not that I don’t often slack anyway. But today is official slack.
Even so, I still didn’t come in on time. I missed Happy Fun Time with Eric. He just didn’t have the stamina to take on the horde.
Poor widdle chewtoy couldn’t withstand a sustained gumming, let alone a full-on chewing. Even his most devoted chewtoys got a little nervous after Eric tucked his chewtoy tail and ran, squeaking out something about brave, brave Sir Eric.
I see that most of the godbots have run away.
I was… ‘lucky’ enough to see their blather first hand, and get in a few licks of my own. My teeth are now sharp, and my coat sufficiently sniny.
and yet, “will” should be “with” in the above.
Snowshoe the Canuck @ 358;
Don’t worry, there will be other, even greater, herds. The bounty of creationist stupidity is perhaps the only genuinely inexhaustible resource out there.
If only we could extract energy from it somehow…
@Gregory Greenwood
Well – the Romans used them for entertainment purposes…
I should rephrase this:
fossils are actually NOT direct evidence of anything.
to:
fossils are actually NOT direct evidence of animals or plants.
because fossils are of course direct evidence of mineral deposition.
Janine Is Still An Asshole, OM, @ 278;
I can’t imagine any adult who isn’t already a fully paid up, bible-bashing, Jeebus-praisin’ fundie being stupid enough to find the defecation of a bunch of xian trolls all over the thread anything other than funny/annoying.
Which is why these cretins are so very eager to get their meathooks into vulnerable children…
@whatamaroon
I’m new to the site and not particularly familiar with the quote system on here. Apologies that I’ve made what I’m saying a little difficult to read, thanks for having the courtesy to read what I had to say.
Personally I don’t BELIEVE in God any more than I believe in the flying Spaghetti monster. Just because I don’t believe in God doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist however. It does prove that currently we have no reliable way of observing ‘God’ if it exists. The same can be said for many things in science, we can’t always directly observe something which is why theories are developed to explain the gaps until we devise a way to confirm or refute the theory.
If we work from principles applied in the world of science, God is simply another theory to the ’cause’ of the Universe. We currently have no way of observing it which is why faith exists.
Forcing said faith on people who don’t have faith is wrong as it denies a person their right to freedom of will.
I’ve found that many people fall into one category or the other and defend their views in a completely dogged and unopen way.
I sit somewhere in the middle, I believe we all have the right to criticise each other, have open debate and discuss said issues. What Major Dowty did was absolutely wrong and deserves to be punished.
@you monster
I am saying people SHOULD be allowed to spout nonsense, I’m also saying people should be allowed to spout sense aswell.
Criticism is a wonderful thing and it allows for progress as it is a tool for improvement, afterall to improve we must know our flaws.
Anyway I’m sleep deprived and my brain is full of fuck. I’m going to go do something useful now like sleep.
Of course, but I was trying to give our friend an introduction to the concept of inductive reasoning.
termin8tor:
Please look up the word “theory.” In science, it doesn’t mean, “Wild-assed guess.” It has a specific meaning. So, in the world of science, God is most definitely not simply another theory to the ’cause’ of the Universe. In the world of science, God is nothing more than an incoherent assertion by people who wish to whitewash ignorance with ridiculous assertions.
Please learn what science is before spreading further misinformation about it.
SyeTenb says@ 114
“Do all truth claims require “physical evidence” in order to be valid?”
Mostly yeah, except maybe true vs false arguments in maths and logic exercises. In the real world there needs to be ‘physical evidence’ in order for a ‘truth’ (or a fact/theory/hypothesis) to be valid, otherwise it could just be made-up stuff out of someone’s imagination. There is no way to tell if a statement is true or imaginary bull-shit unless there is concrete evidence backing it up, beyond someone’s opinion, beliefs, assumptions or tradition. I know the bible says that faith is the ‘evidence’ of things unseen, but in the real world, outside of the universes we make up in our own minds, religious faith is just wishful thinking and we don’t have the power to make the universe conform to our wishes. Magical wishes only come true in the universes of our minds and although I love to visit them occasionally through reading good fantasy stories and daydreams, I live in the real world and it’s important to keep the two separate. Evidence for the real world, magic is for fantasy.
heironymous @ 367;
Well, it can’t be much worse than ‘reality television’ shows like ‘I’m a Z list celebrity, will someone please defibrillate my career’, or so called talent shows like ‘*insert name of country* has (what is inaccurately described as) talent’.
It occurs to me that the Roman analogy is actually rather aposit. Pharyngula is the modern digital Colosseum. The horde are both the Romans and the lions rolled into one. PZ is, naturally, Caesar with the power to dispatch unworthy entertainment with the Banhammer, and we throw fundie presuppositionalis arguments to these discursive big cats in pursuit of the modern equivalent of ‘bread and circuses’ – teh lolz.
The single accurate statement of the Hovind goober rabble: “But Islam isn’t true”. Fair enough, I’m convinced.
Personally I don’t BELIEVE in God any more than I believe in the flying Spaghetti monster. Just because I don’t believe in God doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist however.
translation:
Faith is irrelevant.
good to know.
It does prove that currently we have no reliable way of observing ‘God’ if it exists.
yes, we do.
I just told you how right above your post.
thanks for telling us all the things you really don’t understand, including:
religion
science
evidence
Criticism is a wonderful thing
yes, yes it is.
Five bucks says you won’t appreciate my criticism of your ignorance though.
(emphasis added)
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Thusly do I cause wonder.
termin8tor:
Spouting nonsense is one thing. What about acting on said nonsense to the detriment of others? Where do you stand on that?
Also, what exactly is your point? You still haven’t clarified that. Is it that we’re being dogmatic in our spouting of sense? Is it that we’re stopping people from spouting nonsense? (I’d hope not — this site wouldn’t be nearly as much fun without some folks spouting nonsense.)
Christ, the godbots are out in full force today. And I thought the Time Cube guy was insufferable. Oh well, Hovind’s trolls have definitely been “educated stupid”!
Well, that was … interesting. If god really is the source of all knowledge, they’ve never been plugged in.
Calvinists of the SyeTenb species (a sub cult that believes that their god is obvious and that everybody knows that it exist, but that this god has already made its mind about who will be saved and who won’t) don’t aim at converting anybody. He just pretends to show that “atheists deny his version of god in unrighteousness.” To do that, he does not care if he will lie, misrepresent whatever you say, and run around with his circular arguments. The moment you make the slightest mistake, or get angry at his tactics and obvious misrepresentations, he will claim victory. If you got angry, made the mistake, contradicted yourself, whatever, means that you deny his version of god in unrighteousness.
That’s it. For people like this, ridiculing by playing rhetorical tricks is the same as “winning” an argument and “proving” that atheists deny their version of god. All in one. No matter how childish his games could become, nor how dishonestly he has to play.
It is useless to try and argue with the guy. He does not care. Even if you think you have the right answer, the one that will show his stupidity for what it is. It won’t stop him because he does not care. For whatever disarming argument he will answer something like “of course I disagree, but how do you know … on what standard of logic you …” He will not answer unless he can ridicule and twist your words. This is a game of forcing the burden of proof into you, no matter what, until you fall into one of the rhetorical traps spread all over the place and contradict yourself. Observe the thread and see. It’s a method. Not an argument. A method to keep the stupidity going and going until he feels like he can claim “victory.”
The level of stupidity of the main apparent argument (remember that the argument is but part of the method) is the ideal ingredient. It is not that SyeTenb is really that much of an ass-hole. It is that the level is just right to keep most creationists (his public) staring without understanding anything, yet happy with the feeling that their side is “winning,” while atheists, who tend to have intellectual inclinations and easily see the flaws, will first think that it will be easy to get rid of this apparent idiot, thus engage (think “bait and switch”), but later will be frustrated at the tactics.
He will not answer unless he can ridicule and twist your words.
ah, that Heddle hadn’t done that spectacular flounce, and could show us all just how true those words are.
The wise man has said it out loud.
Oh dear, Sye has been trying this nonsense over at my blog (http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com) for weeks. The guy is one of the biggest arses I’ve ever encountered online.
*facepalm*
Now I reload and see 362. Sorry all. I’m just going to shut up now. I’m not helping.
Well, fortunately no one here is particularly interested in trying “to argue with” the supreme ass SyeTenb. Rather just using him and his kind for our own hourly amusement.
There is a good argument for not allowing such dregs of humanity to be in any position of power, to be teachers who will rot student’s brains, to be politicians or police officers who will enact and enforce christian Sharia, to be military officers who will use their “godly” position to crap on patriotic servicemen …
And that was actually the discussion we were having, before the temporary invasion of the christian terrorists. Maybe we can get back to having that discussion now.
I wish some of these godbots would read PZ’s letter to that kid who asked if a lunar geologist if she was there when a moon rock was formed.
We must convince them to start using their stupidity to do good, rather than to do ill.
There does seem to be a sort of flaw there, however…
Glen Davidson
There does seem to be a sort of flaw there, however…
it does prompt a rather interesting question however:
CAN good come from stupid?
No, no, you are helping.
It needs to be repeated as often as necessary, until everyone on the planet gets it.
Glen Davidson:
The path to good is narrow, and requires discernment and intelligence. The ill path is everything else, and stupidity is the shotgun aimed at everything else.
Now. If you’ll excuse me, I have a few other metaphors that need mixed.
Sye has been trying this nonsense over at my blog (http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com) for weeks
if it’s been that long, you’ve given him, and everyone else, ample opportunity to post and reply.
just toss the fucker.
Erulóra Maikalambe:
That’s OK. raven said it at #271. It’s all good.
If the godbots can keep spouting the same nonsense, we can keep spouting the same sense.
Ichthyic @392:
If I could IP block him I would, unfortunately blogger doesn’t allow it. My Fundamentally Flawed podcasting colleague Jim has banned him over at his blog though
Glen Davidson @ 388;
We could always lock them in a room with the equally oblivious apologists for other religions and forms of woo. Maybe leave a few sharpened objects lying about the place as part of the decor. I think that after a few hours (a couple of days max) the problem woud just sort of solve itself…
If I could IP block him I would, unfortunately blogger doesn’t allow it.
hmm, yeah.
maybe this discussion will help you figure out some kind of solution?
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/blogger/thread?tid=39430488f66fd696&hl=en
Doh! Double fail.
I like that idea. I also loved the Final Fantasy response Julian used earlier. That was perfect. Right in line with the Star Trek Rule. And very a propos. I still haven’t found a good quote from Star Trek to use. There’s probably some in “Who Mourns for Adonais?” or in Star Trek V (but I refuse to watch that dredge again just to mine quotes).
Ichthyic @396:
Thanks for the link, I’ll see what that suggests.
erichovind
Been there, done that, for over 20 years. Finally realized that too high a percentage of followers are dimwitted lying fuckers like yourself for your religion to be true. Oh, and I actually read the bible for comprehension instead of continuing to assume that preachers and apologetics gave the whole story.
Christianity depends on deliberate misinterpretation (and outright changing of) Hebrew scripture just to exist, and the deliberate dumbing-down of its followers in order for it to flourish. The dumbing-down is clearly evidenced by you and the horde of imbecilic, godbotting nincompoops that you sent here. The collective IQ of your little Christergang here is astoundingly low.
Maybe you should take a hint – every time you try to troll places such as this, you end up looking really stupid. And your filthy, immoral religion ends up looking even worse. Killing your religion, one imbecilic comment at a time. Keep up the good work hastening the death of your foul cult.
ITMT, I have found that simply repeatedly deleting the posts of irritating trolls, WITHOUT COMMENT, tends to discourage them from posting on your site fairly quickly.
so, I would write ONE notice saying that this user has nothing further to contribute to your blog, and you will be henceforth deleting their comments on site without further comment.
shouldn’t take long before they get bored of seeing their posts just disappear.
…just to note, the reason I stressed “without comment” is that commenting that you have deleted a post actually seems to encourage them more than no comment at all.
So I now sorta understand why my brother became religious in his early military career. Not so religious now.
Comments started out very entertaining but got boring. Repeating “God told me” in various forms does not make for a good argument.
oh, and this, from that discussion, is about the most detailed thing I could find on moderating comments in Blogger:
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2008/10/comment-moderation-in-blogger-blogs.html
If I knew for certain god existed, would I worship him/it?
No, why should I? Does he/she/it have an insecurity problem? For what reason would a god require worship?
Alex Botten:
Try this.
Far from perfect, but Blogger doesn’t allow for much else.
…and, typically, in situations where you regularly get trolls, you can simply set your blog to moderate all comments, then just start creating an approved list of commenters as they post.
this is what Jerry Coyne does with his blog.
not as much work as you might think, even a blog like Pharyngula wouldn’t take more than a half hour per day to process new commenters.
it makes it easy to remove people from the “approved” list, and then their comments go into the permanent moderation waiting room.
@CS:
Try this.
heh.
@ Anteprepro #113
From Sweden, you say? I didn’t know that.
And here I was afraid that with all these godbots infesting the thread, I wouldn’t learn anything new.
Ichthyic: It can be fun smacking clue into trolls sometimes though.
I’m trying to read this thread through, but I have to keep stopping. I’m laughing so hard at the godbot drivel that I can’t see for the tears. I should save the rest for the next time I need cheering up.
I still like that SyeTenB @93 took the bait like the fucking oblivious dumbass he is and choked on it.
Although of course he is too stupid to realize it.
I’m pretty sure no one was converted by the godbots, but my daughter was over here visiting her cat (I’m cat-sitting while her apartment is being worked on) and she heard me laugh out loud at one of the exchanges here, and she ended up spending about a half hour reading, laughing, and WTFing at the concentrated stupid.
Ichthyic: It can be fun smacking clue into trolls sometimes though.
one, if they are trolls, you aren’t actually cluing THEM in to anything.
two, the fun wears off rapidly with repeated attempts at applying the flamethrower and not ending up with charcoal as the result, which is what happens with trolls.
nope, simple removal of the offending poster is the best solution.
Although of course he is too stupid to realize it.
yeah, I found that more than a bit amusing.
but then, trolling these trolls is not a challenge.
I like that they for some reason think this is Twitter and they should put meaningless hashtags on everything.
Those of us on the other side of the pond miss out on so much because of the time difference, although it was great fun reading through the minor fundie incursion. Bit more OT: one reason I began to question my xianity was because of the hierarchical power displays of the conservative minister at the church I was in. He felt he had a fibre-optic God connection while the rest of us only had dial-up. This led to a nasty passive aggressive nature. Other comments from the the pulpit like ‘the level of Holy Spirit within you is directly proportional to the amount of alcohol you drink …’ were the conflating factors that led me inexorably on the path to atheism. Of course I retain enough compassion to feel sad that the fundie invaders will all lose jewels from their heavenly crowns for showing others just why one should not be a Christian.
Rey: I wonder if they’re coordinating on Twitter or something. Abject stupidity is always an option with creationists though.
@MrFire: LOL! Thread won several times.
@Julian – “Sorcerer would fit but then there’s the faith’s hostility towards witchcraft…”
That’s OK, the anti-witchcraft stuff is how your supervillian gets his minions to take out his rivals before they get too powerful.
You’ll also need to decide where in its career you’re placing your story. Dude’s been in a severe decline since the beginning of the story. It starts with making a planet and stars, and then early on it can do global floods, but as the book goes on it’s reduced to calling fire and summoning bears. The next episode features some some minor conjuring, with a spot of healing and a raise dead spell. And these days it just makes patterns in toast.
“Logical arguments are logically impossible without God. Any intellectually honest person who has thought about it must admit this.”
I simply cannot imagine how anybody could come to think this is right.
For one thing, I’m at a loss to understand what gods have to do with logic. They are associated with magic and miracles, which are the opposite of logic.
Second, since it is unsupported by any prior statement, it can only be that this is posited as an axiom: ‘logical arguments are logically impossible without God’.
However, it cannot be an axiom for a number of reasons. First, it is recursive. Second, it has complex terms (‘god’). Third, it is a conclusion. And so on.
If it is not an axiom, then it needs to be supported by lower-order statements. It is not supported by lower-order statements.
Since the assertion is not an axiom, and it is unsupported, it has no force. Furthermore, any person making the assertion has either not noticed these deficiencies – and is therefore stupid – or has noticed the deficiencies – and is therefore intellectually dishonest.
@julian
Oh, definitely Druid. I mean, look at all the magic stuff he does in the bible: plagues, talking animals, floods, bushes that don’t burn, and remember those two bears he had slaughtering children, and the lion that ate that one guy… These are all classic Druid abilities. He even controls the weather every once in a while, he sends plagues of birds and frogs and snakes… I’d say there’s no question.
Also, LE. A lawful neutral god would not take so much pleasure in all that bloodshed, and probably would find better ways of disciplining his followers than having them murder each other.
SyeTenb is good for something. He or she or it provides strong evidence for the idea that Christians are stupid fucking assholes.
I like the way SyeTenB has recently read the Wikipedia entry on ‘Logical Fallacy’ and is incompetently trying to play logic-gotcha with rationalists and skeptics who have a much, much better grasp on the material.
Keep reading SyeTenB, you don’t know it yet but you’re playing with the fire of knowledge. Learn enough about logic and soon enough you’ll be learning to reason. Some time after that, I suspect you will begin to value evidence. I predict that after you fall out with your creationist buddies, you will re-surface here sometime in 2014 asking the most of the same questions, only ingenuously for a change.
According to the propaganda Yahweh likes to do some slaughtering himself. He nuked Sodom and Gomorrah because…well, just because.
SyeTenB is using god as a ‘shim’ between logic (something that he/she obviously values) and the cognitive dissonance that results from trying to reconcile logic with the creationist worldview.
I rarely laugh our loud, mostly I just grin or chuckle silently. But this thread got me twice:
julian #257 replying to a bible quote with a Final Fantasy quote, and Esteleth #262 “Then I turned eleven.”
Good work, everybody!
I liked how they rode into Pharyngula Town ass badass and confident in their sad little lists of what they were sure were magic “gotcha” questions. These brilliant logical gems of the Hovindmind would surely have us mean ol’ Pharyngulites rending our (blended fiber) garments and begging the now terribly obvious gawd to forgive us.
Or not.
Assholes.
Oh, and if you’re still around, no, I wouldn’t worship Yaweh or Jehovah or Jehosephat or whatever its name is. He’s a sociopathic monster. I’d take being the towel boy in hell any day.
Speaking of hell, it was an interesting book I read lately by Iain M. Banks. Surface Detail; it’s sci-fi, and in it Banks posits a universe populated by millions of sentient species, many of which have developed the ability to copy/paste entire consciousnesses and personalities. You can download into a new body–effective immortality–or you can choose to hang out in virtual environments. Of course, a few species have religions with hells, and actually force some citizens to be copied after death into the hells their religion. This inspires part of the premise of the book: an actual war in (virtual) heaven, over the existence of these realms of torture.
Fascinating book.
Wow, that was exhausting. Thank you to all who took on the–well, my bet is a theology-based philosophy class’s midterm project (proving the certainty of the unknowable through the uncertainty of knowledge, or how I learned to love Postmodernism). The counter-posts were brilliant!
Emphasizin the presupposition of a god must be the latest trend. I’m seeing it everywhere. The church down the street (Missouri Synod Lutheran) has a sign blaming the troubles of the world on those who “reject God.” At a Catholic church recently, I noticed that the priest contrasted believing in God not with disbelief, but with “being disobedient.”
Maybe next week some philatelists will show up and assert that everyone has a stamp collection.
If you all think we are a bunch trolls why are you answering?????
Last year Eric Hovind visited us with the “how can you know anything” schtick. He kept trying to get us to admit that because we couldn’t know everything therefore god. Several of us, particularly Kel and Sastra, tried to explain the difference between absolute knowledge and high confidence.
Here’s a sample Hovind quote: “Since you could be wrong about everything you know, is it possible to know anything for certain?”
Well, because it’s amusing! And because they are some interesting questions you all raise, about how we know what we know. Of course, you’re not asking them to get answers, you’re just asking to go “gotcha!” because you think you already have answers. Which only makes it even more fun to genuinely explore the issue of the nature of knowledge and logic and reality.
Do you have any more questions, darling?
Mac, do you have Eric’s permission to be out of your cage without your keeper ?
Because the SIWOTI* syndrome is strong in us.
*Someone is wrong on the internet.
So amazingly vacuous. One of my favorite things to do in these cases is simple word substitution.
When your argument can “prove” anything, it proves nothing at all.
And no, of course nobody’s certain that it’s impossible to know things for certain. It could be that there are things we can know for certain. I haven’t heard of any thus far, but I can’t rule it out.
Mac:
To show the lurkers how to handle trolls. (I sure learned a lot today.)
And no, of course nobody’s certain that it’s impossible to know things for certain. It could be that there are things we can know for certain. I haven’t heard of any thus far, but I can’t rule it out.
So you are saying that you dont know anything for certain? How come i know that if i drop somthing it will fall!! I can be certain of that! How can you say that you dont know that for certain?
Oh, yeah, I remember that – that was when that cheap fraud Eric magicked away the poll answers he didn’t like and swapped the order of the questions to make it look like the poll was going his way. What an example of christian goodness and honesty !
It doesn’t look like the pissant little cheater has learned anything in the meantime – unless you count getting sneakier as “learning something”.
And now he’s got even stupider minions to help him here. Well, that strategy could backfire – when Hovind can keep them locked in his cage, they can’t learn anything, but when he lets them lose on a site like this where they’ll be exposed to truth and rationality … who knows, some of them might actually cast off the shackles permanently and become godless grownups.
One came back?
Excellent!
Now I can hear about all that evidence for god that’s going to prevent me from spending an eternity in hellfire!
Anytime now, Mac’s gonna bring it.
Yep.
Yep, real soon.
…
Aaaaanytime now.
Actually, about… now.
Or, um…
…
Now!
ok, Now!
He really, really is!
Really!
What if you’re in space?
OOOoooh, snap! Now you have to admit that there is no god, as you knew all along in your heart of hearts.
Now I can hear about all that evidence for god that’s going to prevent me from spending an eternity in hellfire!
Thought you didnt believe in God? So you are saying you do?
What if you are wrong about what you believe?
Mac,
Other than SyeTenb’s annoying “are you certain” responses to anything anyone said, your invasion today was fun. You folks showed your utter reliance on presupposition and utter refusal to admit you didn’t know anything about epistemology. We got to show off our philosophical knowledge to each other. Everyone came out ahead. You tried to preach to the heathen and we got a chuckle out of your general cluelessness.
I used to be able to put line breaks inside blockquotes. Not sure when or why that stopped working. But I’m pretty sure I spelled ‘br’ correctly. Ah well. So the quotes from two different people got mashed together, but it doesn’t really change anything, as they were spouting the same nonsense.
The br tags don’t work on FTB, for whatever reason. But the good news is that you can just use the return-carriage instead. Much easier.
What if you’re in space?
There is still gravity in space. Prove to me that the God of the Bible does not exist.
Pascal’s wager? Really? Booooring.
Damn, Mac, you are clueless.
Anri was playing with you and you fell for it. Come on, how can we keep our fangs sharp and our coats sniny* if you play the lackwit?
*No, that’s not a typo.
Careful, Mac, does your master know you claim that there are facts you can know because you can test them repeatedly and make a rational conclusion based on the evidence ? Thinking like that can get you barred from his church of goddidit. Or are you one of those idiots who think that falling is really controlled by the special angels who push individual objects down to earth ?
Because you don’t.
It is terribly probable that what you drop will fall (not counting things such as dropping live birds, or helium-filled balloons, etc), but not certain.
What’s neat about science is it lets us figure out just how probable such things are.
. . .
Hmm, no evidence for god in this post.
It’ll be in his next, I’m certain. (Heh)
Prove to me that Santa Claus does not exist.
erichovind:
Jesus Christ, what an asshole. Did someone just discover freshman level philosophy?
Mac:
‘Cos I find people that use multiple questions marks to be fascinatingly stupid.
That’s easy. There’s no, as in ZERO, evidence your god exists.
Next question.
Mac is extra stupid:
If someone already believes in god, they wouldn’t need to see evidence. If they are requesting evidence, it’s because they don’t believe in god.
If god is the source of logic, then why did he make it impossible to both follow the rules of logic and also believe in him?
Is he just an asshole or did he make a mistake? If he make a mistake, how can we be sure that he’s the source of logic? Is making mistakes compatible with being perfectly logical? Is god imperfectly logical? Or is he illogical and logical at the same time?
What if you are wrong about what you believe?
God has reveled it to us in such a way that we can know for certain it is true!
I NEVER HEARD ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD HAPPEN TO YOU IF YOU WERE WRONG IN YOUR BELIEF????
Every Christmas Eve I hang my pillowcase on the mantle piece and every Christmas morning it’s full of lumps of coal. If Santa Claus existed then there’d be goodies in my pillowcase.
But the coal does burn nicely in the fireplace.
(Gah, cross-commenting).
No, I was asked upthread if I would worship god if Christianity were true.
This was my response:
(emphasis added for relevancy)
Despite answering a question, and asking another politely, I never got an answer.
I am presuming you won’t answer in good faith either, but I can always hope.
That’s easy. There’s no, as in ZERO, evidence your god exists.
How do you know?
Were are you getting your information?
I love the impetuous smugness of this utter non-sequitur. It’s almost a thing of beauty.
“I answered your zinger with a not even wrong piece of embarrassingly dumb shit. Your move on something totally unrelated, punk!”
Mac:
Dude. The exclamation points. Calm down.
Do you actually understand gravity, or do you just know that “herp a derp! Things fall down!”
Holy shit, that’s comedy gold.
Gravity, therefore God? Is that what you’re arguing?
Pop quiz hotshot: Gravity is a function of __________?
Never happened. If it had happened, everyone would know it. We don’t know it, so it didn’t happen.
Not a fucking thing, since your god is a figment of bronze age goatherders’ imaginations.
And don’t yell at us, asshole.
@ Mac
I don’t “believe in” or not “believe in” gods. The bible-thingy you folks fall back on is a ridiculous book of fabrication, unworthy of consideration as containing anything remotely resembling truth. All of it, gods, miracles and the rest is preposterous.
As you prove by playing these word-games.
Pony up with some evidence, Mac. Just once, a teeny, tiny shred of evidence that any of that bullshit is true.
You will prove my point by coming back with more of your circular “reasoning”.
While this thread has been amusing and informative, I wonder if the subject of the post, Major Dowty, is a member of Hovind’s “church.” I’m glad they didn’t try to derail the other blog post about the Michigan legislature enabling the bullying of children. Though, I imagine they wouldn’t want to touch that one with a ten volume annotated bible.
Then I’ll go to hell with the rest of the sinners, like Mahatma Gandhi, Francis Crick, Ingmar Bergman, and approximately 99% of humanity.
Mmmm, no he really didn’t. He revealed “it” (whatever “it” is) in such a way as to make it impossible to believe in him while simultaneously maintaining a firm grasp on reality. He revealed “it” in such a way as to exclude most of humanity from ever seeing his important message, if it really is true. Which is an asshole move.
Well, apparently I’ll incur the wrath of a childish tyrant-god who has a very fragile ego. I view that as a plus. Speaks well of my character.
What if YOU were wrong in your belief? That’s a lot of wasted time and effort. And no second chance. Bummer.
Mac, could you please indicate in some way where the people you’re quoting end and your comments begin? Please?
The fact that all the godbots here today comment like that is rather suspicious.
Mac:
Who the fuck cares?
Basically, you’re saying that you believe in a Christian god because you’re too chicken shit not to. How sad. :(
What if you’re wrong? What if the Muslims are right and you’re going to burn for eternity because you didn’t praise Allah five times a day?
C’mon, lackwit, you can do better than that.
You’re the one who says you can be certain that if i drop somthing it will fall!! (Yep, you stuck in two exclamation points, just to make extra certain, hee hee)
But if you drop something when you’re in space, it WON’T FALL, idiot. You know that. You’ve seen it in videos from the space station. Remember how amazing it is when an astronaut lets go of something and it just floats around in space ?
You really have to up your game if you want us to think you’re taking this seriously.
Or admit you’re just here for the laughs, like we are.
Here’s to laughing at you, Mac !
If you had no good evidence that god is real, would you still worship him?
I do worship Him and God is real. I know this because He has revealed it to us through His word!
I still havent got an answer from you on how you know what you know true.
There’s this thing called reality. As a creationist fundamentalist, you’re unfamiliar with the concept, but normal people know about it.
Worship your asshole of a god? Are you fucking nuts? Never mind, you do worship it, so you are fucking nuts.
Again, right back at you: how do you know you don’t have ten legs?
Mac the Stupid:
Nope, try again. Your shared delusion is not truth and repeatedly abusing punctuation marks is not going to make it true.
In your case? You’ll die, just like everything else, and rot. That’s it, over, done, you are no more. Which makes you being such an obnoxious pest while alive even more annoying.
Mac:
Where? When? And how?
Remember: You lose points for mentioning the bible! That was written by… (wait for it)… people!
Wait, is your god illiterate?
Oh, I missed his thing about there being gravity in space. Hilarious.
Well, Mac, there may be gravity in space, but its effect is negligible. To the point that, if you are holding something and let go of it, it won’t fall. (Why am I not surprised that you are ignorant of even these most basic facts?)
Therefore, you can’t be 100% certain that if you drop something, it will fall, every single time. After all, you can’t be 100% certain that aliens didn’t kidnap you to their spaceship while you were sleeping. You could be plugged into their virtual reality simulation right now. You just don’t know. Not with certainty, anyway.
This is too funny.
Mac:
Which was written by people and there’s no evidence to the contrary. Care to try again?
Then I’ll go to hell with the rest of the sinners, like Mahatma Gandhi, Francis Crick, Ingmar Bergman, and approximately 99% of humanity.
So you believe there is a hell? Where did that come from? How do you know there is a hell.
Mac:
Seriously. Philosophy 101 was old and boring when I was 18. Do you even realize that you’re making a very poor argument for solipsism?
Mac the Stupid:
Did you mean to say “if you had good evidence” perhaps? Even if there was evidence and it was clear that your nasty psychopathic excuse for a god existed, no, I wouldn’t worship it. Absolutely not.
Sorry, I don’t think psychopathic, bloodthirsty assholes with the mentality of a two year old deserve any attention, let alone worship and that goes for real or imaginary.
No, you dimwit. You asked what would happen if I were wrong. There’s my answer. Of course, not all Christians even believe in hell, so there’s really no telling. I am 99.99999% certain that there is no hell, but I could be wrong. It’s not a big enough possibility to warrant worrying myself over, though. Anyway, if hell did exist, that’s where all the interesting people would be. If heaven is full of people like you, that WOULD be torturous.
It was inspired by God
Oh, please, quit reading from your script. It makes you appear foolish.
The Tao of Mac: “It is impossible to know everything or predict events with absolute certainty. Therefore, God.”
Wanna go deep-sea diving? Sure, you’ve checked all the evidence, and none of it suggests a kraken’s down there. But you can’t be absolutely certain that there’s no kraken. Via Mac-logic, this means we know that a kraken’s lurking.
What if you’re wrong about the FSM, Mac? You could face an eternal hell of cold gluggy noodles, while the rest of us dine on hot, exquisitely seasoned pastas. Do you really want to risk your immortal soul and its taste buds?
How do you know that for sure?
I mean, “inspired” doesn’t mean “dictated.” So there could be errors.
Do you think there are errors?
We are talking about the Bible, right?
Mac, it would be easier to read your rantings if you made it obvious when you’re quoting someone and when you’re spewing out your incoherency. You can put <blockquote> </blockquote> around the quotes, you can put the quote in <i> italics </i>, or you can put plain “quotations marks” around the quote. This isn’t rocket surgery or brain science.
Is it that you won’t answer my question, or that you can’t?
Ah, well, I’ll show myself as being a better person that the local self-appointed rep for Christianity and answer another question of yours, while still awaiting your response.
What we ‘know’ is, in fact, a series of assumptions made based on observation and inference from those observations.
Good observations are repeatable, falsifiable, and have predictive quality.
Bad ones are uniquely personal, unfalsifiable, and do not predict the surrounding world well.
Remember when I predicted you wouldn’t answer my question?
That was a falsifiable concept that has been shown to have predictive power. Wanna go for repeatability too?
I am 99.99999% certain that there is no hell, but I could be wrong.
You just said that you were certain, right? Do you believe in absoulte truth? Cause you just contradicted yourself!!!
Fuck off, you miserable little troll. No one could be as dumb as you pretend to be and still remember to breath.
It was a conditional answer to a conditional question: WHAT IF ?
IF your odious god, THEN I’ll go to hell. (And I’ll go proudly, too, rather than submit to the damned tyrant you cheerfully lick ass for.)
But that doesn’t mean that I do believe there is a hell now. Of course no one here knows there is a hell. You don’t know it either, although it’s possible you’re insane enough to believe in one. Too bad for you, ass licker.
Mac:
Pffft, that’s no answer (assuming, of course, you’re referring to the bible. You’re communication skillz are sorely lacking). Someone made up a story, eventually it got written down, so you believe it? That’s pretty fucking weak, my dear.
Really, you could pick a much better book of fiction to worship. May I suggest American Gods? Look, it’s even got “god” right in the title!
If there is absolute/objective morality and said absolute morality contains “Though shall not kill” as a basic tenet then on what basis would genocide be right?
If there is a basis on which genocide is wrong when performed by some entities but right when performed by others then said morality is not absolute/objective.
Same apply to logic. If logic is objective then it cannot be defined by any entity but must exist regardless of whether said entity (or any entity for that matter) exists. If logic only exists because a given entity declared it to be then said logic is not objective but subjective.
Same apply to math. If math is objective then it cannot be defined by any entity but must exist regardless of whether said entity (or any entity for that matter) exists. If math only exists because a given entity declared it to be then said math is not objective but subjective.
So do you believe that god can make 1+1=3 true?
So do you believe that god can make the following true:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.
So do you believe that god can make raping your neihgour on the sabbath moral?
If you believe that god can do these things then morality, logic and math are not objective but subjective to god.
if you believe that god cannot do these things then god does not define morality logic or math.
Furthermore we know that a god that is both omniscient and completely logical cannot exist because of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems as the latter means that there are true statement that cannot be known logically however an omniscient god would by definition know them but as they cannot be known logically he could not know them logically and thus there is a limit either to god’s logical ability or to god’s knowledge which is incoherent with a completely logical and omniscient god.
As for why I know that I can apply logic to the preceding statements, it is because you posted your post. Indeed, if logic didn’t work I could not correlate it to the real world and applying it to the real world would not bring any new verifiable knowledge but applying logic to the real world is what gives us the scientific method, which gave us, among other things, computers, which unfortunately gave us your and your ilk’s posts.
Theology, unlike logic, cannot be checked against the real world and thus, unlike logic, cannot bring us any verifiable knowledge.
Given that religions get it so wrong about nonobvious facts of the world and get it so wrong about morality it is reasonable to believe that their theology is just as wrong.
============================================
PS: To erihovind: tell you daddy that his models of a canopy is biblically wrong as the firmament that separates the water under the firmament (the oceans) from the water above it (the canopy) contains the sun, the moon and the stars so he needs to move them from above the canopy to under the canopy.
Personally I think it makes more sense if you think in term of the writers seeing the untouchable blue sky (as the air they can “touch” is transparent, not blue) and the touchable blue sea and deduce that there must be a sea above the sky. Of course if god created the world and inspired the bible to be inerrant then genesis 1 would have an explanation about light absorbtion and scattering for the blueness of the sky, not an imaginary, gravity defying water canopy.
Mac @ 475:
Sugar, you excel at missing the point. Try thinking. This is what you were responding to:
Okay, in idiot speak, which you seem to require: no, there isn’t a hell, lackwit. However, it is one of those things you believe in and you believe your God is gonna fry hisself some peoples, oh yeah! The point that was being made to you is that those people going to the great ol’ bar-b-q in the sky include good people. Not only good people, but some people who did great good for all people. That means that psychopathic monster you call God is a psychopathic monstrosity and you’re pretty damn stupid to believe in it, let alone worship it.
Sally Strange, OM #478
“Heaven for climate, Hell for society.” -Mark Twain
Mac:
Also, what about all of the other religions out there that have holy works inspired by their god/s? How do you know that they’re not wrong?
My dear child. “99% certain of X” simply means that I estimate that there is 99% probability that X is true.
So no, I don’t believe in absolute truths. And I haven’t contradicted myself. Not about that, anyway. I’m sorry that you struggle so much with the basic meanings of words.
Would you like more lessons in basic statistics and science? Happy to oblige!
Hey Mac,
If you’re still around, maybe you can answer a question I had upthread. What’s up with the gendered god? If there’s only one of him, why bother with gender? Or is there a Mrs. God up there doing the housework, taking care of all the little gods, etc.? Or perhaps she has a universe of her own to run?
Or maybe god is gay?
Anyway, if he created us in his image, does that mean he has genetalia? Ear wax? Nose hair? Is he balding these days? (He’s got to be getting on in years.) How are his kidneys holding up? And does he remember to put the toilet seat down after he pees?
See, these are the kind of details that would tell us you actually know something about this alleged god of yours, that you’ve actually hung out with him.
Ass licker.
It’s pretty simple. The supposedly omnipotent God of Christianity could instantly prove to all of us he exists. He doesn’t. This means that he doesn’t exist, he doesn’t care whether we believe in him or not, or he wants most human beings to suffer the eternal torment that is supposedly the punishment for those who don’t worship him. Why would anyone want to worship God type 3, who apparently wants to punish people you know and care for no matter how hard you try to convert them? Of course if we take the Bible at face value, like the fundies claim to do, God probably isn’t omnipotent. After all he can’t fix his broken creations directly, he can’t get rid of Satan, he can’t do a whole bunch of other things an omnipotent being should be able to do.
Me:
I know there’s an internet rule that describes this phenomenon. XD
But that doesn’t mean that I do believe there is a hell now. Of course no one here knows there is a hell. You don’t know it either, although it’s possible you’re insane enough to believe in one. Too bad for you, ass licker.
This is my question to you? How do you know that there is know hell.
Without God we know nothing thats how i can know for certain that the God of the Bible is true. Because his has reveled it to us.
erichovind says:
Ok, let’s try that again:
erichovind says:
How about fixing that not all christians obey Mark 12:17?
Yeah, the male deity thing makes me giggle.
“WORSHIP ME FOR I AM ALL-POWERFUL! I can do anything: turn aside the seas! Turn water into wine! ANYTHING AT ALL! YOU NAME IT, I CAN DO IT! …except for gestating a fetus.”
Pretty unimpressive for a supposedly omnipotent being.
That’s not true.
Therefore the god of the Bible is false.
Jackshit was revealed to you. Just a bunch of dudes writing down stories. Silly stories, at that.