Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I finally got around to reading some of your exchange with Mystic from that “Challenge to Atheism” thread. I enjoy reading those old threads. That exchange was at a time when Mystic was new to the forum and you two weren’t familiar with other yet.
Now, eleven years later, you and Mystic are still arguing about the same thing. You two have a long, time-tested relationship. Can’t you see you’re perfect for each other?
Get a room, you lovebirds!
<3 <3 <3
The key words are "pointless."
We are discussing religion and spirituality. Trans is asking for proof. Mystic gives him proof and then it awas dismissed as "pointless" It was then stopped.
That alone shows that there is serous agenda running this show. They cannot discuss belief in an open and honest manor. They feel it enables believers to believe in stuff.
The name needs to be changed to reflect the true intent. But I guess if they do that they know they lose.
To quote Mystic, "This does NOT mean evolution is discredited . . . just the unguided form of it". No wonder the Jargonauts avoid the science forum.
And then to argue "How does the PHENOMENON of belief itself (awareness, understanding, comprehension) arise from purely mechanistic chemical processes" while ignoring the question begging alternative, how would complex belief itself (awareness, understanding, comprehension) simply just exist? It is a good question*, but Mystic's question begging alternative raises more questions without answering anything.
I finally got around to reading some of your exchange with Mystic from that “Challenge to Atheism” thread. I enjoy reading those old threads. That exchange was at a time when Mystic was new to the forum and you two weren’t familiar with other yet.
Now, eleven years later, you and Mystic are still arguing about the same thing. You two have a long, time-tested relationship. Can’t you see you’re perfect for each other?
Get a room, you lovebirds!
<3 <3 <3
Don't hold me to that early stuff! I have always had to admit mistakes and move on. The debate really began when New Atheism arose out of the Internet ('80's) and 'I was there' as they say. First studying under 'positive atheism' as a noob and doing a few forums before ending up here. And really the debate hasn't changed - broadly. And yet there have been changes. Not just here where evolution -discussion is pretty much banned, but outside where the I/D polemic was pushed hard but has been debunked now, even if they keep on making the same arguments.
Morality ( as I've often said) was a tough apologetic at first but now it really isn't - but it keeps being presented. It's always been like that. The believers get presented the old debunked apologetics and then they roll up here unaware it's all old hat.
They wriggle and dodge, unaware that it's been done before. In the end they run out of new dodges and slip away. I wonder then at the ones that keep on, and on and on. Their dedication must be as strong as mine. Any why not if the confidence in their own belief is as strong. And yet, I can't imagine what it is like to have to maintain belief when the arguments get batted down one after another. I once invested confidence in a Real Jesus story that was an 'Interpretation' of the gospels but I had to give it up when it became clear that the details to be 'Interpreted ' had been invented in the first place.
Because (as a skeptic) I had not invested personal cred into the Real Jesus theory and so I could Let it Go fairly easily. How hard it would be to battle for the wedding at Cana or the raising of Lazarus to be actual events against someone arguing (as I do) for invention. I imagine it must be like that for the believers, denialiddling away against evidence.
Yes, in the end, the apologetic must move to dismissing evidence and reason and reverting to Faith, but that doesn't work either:
"How can you put value in faith in One claim when there are a hundred -dozen different ones?"
"If you dismiss unwelcome evidence and inconvenient logic, don't ever claim that science and logic supports you."
I've said it before - I would hate to have to do faith -based denial like a religious believer. Never mind having to resort to dirty tricks to try to eliminate the opposition rather than debate the evidence.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-09-2021 at 11:53 AM..
I've said it before - I would hate to have to do faith -based denial like a religious believer. Never mind having to resort to dirty tricks to try to eliminate the opposition rather than debate the evidence.
The dirty trick is is using phrases like "Ok, but don't slow us down or get in our way. we are fighting for you too." or "you are enabling them"
Or my favorite ... when talking about belief that are the same as what science studies stopped becauee you feel "they don't get us anywhere."
So just where doesn't it get us when people use actual science to form a belief?
I though you are asking for evidence? But then when its given you have ask the person to "heel" (not get in your way) or you have avoid the evidence because it doesn't get you anywhere?
Not an atheist but I'll play anyway. I like George Carlin. If I had to name the most effective atheist I would name him . Humor has a way of making the sword sharper, so to speak.
I have watched, read and like Richard Dawkins. I've watched Christopher Hitchens, but always found him sort of shrill, figuratively speaking. I thought he had more trouble adequately refuting William Craig than even I would; Hitchens seemed to like to hear himself talk a little too much instead of driving a point home. But I only watched a few such debates.
Don't hold me to that early stuff! I have always had to admit mistakes and move on. The debate really began when New Atheism arose out of the Internet ('80's) and 'I was there' as they say. First studying under 'positive atheism' as a noob and doing a few forums before ending up here. And really the debate hasn't changed - broadly. And yet there have been changes. Not just here where evolution -discussion is pretty much banned, but outside where the I/D polemic was pushed hard but has been debunked now, even if they keep on making the same arguments.
Morality ( as I've often said) was a tough apologetic at first but now it really isn't - but it keeps being presented. It's always been like that. The believers get presented the old debunked apologetics and then they roll up here unaware it's all old hat.
They wriggle and dodge, unaware that it's been done before. In the end they run out of new dodges and slip away. I wonder then at the ones that keep on, and on and on. Their dedication must be as strong as mine. Any why not if the confidence in their own belief is as strong. And yet, I can't imagine what it is like to have to maintain belief when the arguments get batted down one after another. I once invested confidence in a Real Jesus story that was an 'Interpretation' of the gospels but I had to give it up when it became clear that the details to be 'Interpreted ' had been invented in the first place.
Because (as a skeptic) I had not invested personal cred into the Real Jesus theory and so I could Let it Go fairly easily. How hard it would be to battle for the wedding at Cana or the raising of Lazarus to be actual events against someone arguing (as I do) for invention. I imagine it must be like that for the believers, denialiddling away against evidence.
Yes, in the end, the apologetic must move to dismissing evidence and reason and reverting to Faith, but that doesn't work either:
"How can you put value in faith in One claim when there are a hundred -dozen different ones?"
"If you dismiss unwelcome evidence and inconvenient logic, don't ever claim that science and logic supports you."
I've said it before - I would hate to have to do faith -based denial like a religious believer. Never mind having to resort to dirty tricks to try to eliminate the opposition rather than debate the evidence.
That was back in your "Plantinga period." You thought you had discovered a "theists' nitemare" that atheist scholars had somehow overlooked.
What is your current pet theory and how many pet theories have have you had over the decades?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
[...snip...]
I have said that I don't have expertise in this area and I await refutation. I dread being tangled up in abstruse terminology and incomprehensible arguments. I believe that I have grasped the essential argument and seen that, while it is ok so far as it goes, if it is to be applied to the god - question - and I believe that it is ingenuous to suggest that it is not intended to be - then it needs to be taken a bit further; to consider all the factors, not just those that allow the proposition to stay afloat.
If the implications of that consideration of all factors is valid (and I await better refutation than 'it isn't about God' or 'you're missing the point') then I am inclined to suggest to Alvin Plantinga that he realize that he has done more to undermine god - belief than Farrel Till. He has produced a theists' nitemare that puts Ray Comfort's Intelligently Designed banana in the shade. And I suggest that he take the implications of his own proposition on board, give up his (undoubted) Faith and devote his undeniable intelligence and expertise to searching out the truth, rather than trying to prop up fallacy.
Not an atheist but I'll play anyway. I like George Carlin. If I had to name the most effective atheist I would name him . Humor has a way of making the sword sharper, so to speak.
I have watched, read and like Richard Dawkins. I've watched Christopher Hitchens, but always found him sort of shrill, figuratively speaking. I thought he had more trouble adequately refuting William Craig than even I would; Hitchens seemed to like to hear himself talk a little too much instead of driving a point home. But I only watched a few such debates.
But George was great.
Not an atheist? I' wouldn't have known. Some kind of theist, then? Or an 'agnostic'? (Not arguing, just asking )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
That was back in your "Plantinga period." You thought you had discovered a "theists' nitemare" that atheist scholars had somehow overlooked.
What is your current pet theory and how many pet theories have have you had over the decades?
I can't remember now just what Plantinga was saying. I think it might have been as simple as strawmanning atheism as a claim that no god existed rather than not being persuaded by the theist god -clam (name your own, including quasi - gods like Karma or thetans) But I do remember that it simply told a lot of nonsense about atheists....but I might have been referring back to that far earlier 'Matrix' thread. That appeared to argue that godfaith was a survival instinct and thus more useful than true. But that might have been poster Matrix's argument rather than Plantinga's.
But that isn't my 'Pet Theory' which is about the 'Real Jesus'.
And what about you? What Theist writers, spokebods and savants do you follow? You posted a couple of things about David Woods, Wasn't that one filmed in Schindlerist mono in a metro station claiming to be about what converted him from atheism but putting arguments that no 'thinking' atheist would have been bothered with, Woods in his younger days? Is Woods a particular inspiration for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
You calling it rubbish when you said it to me means what exactly?
you refused to answer ... after you said it me ... means what?
You're still boring me, for one. I don't care - claim that I'm 'running away' or 'hiding' as you do when I stop wasting time on your tripe and jibes. I'm banking that nobody but other atheist bashers will thumb you up.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-10-2021 at 01:07 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No wonder the Jargonauts avoid the science forum.
I have always had to admit mistakes and move on. The debate really began when New Atheism arose out of the Internet ('80's) and 'I was there' as they say. First studying under 'positive atheism' as a noob and doing a few forums before ending up here. And really the debate hasn't changed - broadly. And yet there have been changes. Not just here where evolution -discussion is pretty much banned, but outside where the I/D polemic was pushed hard but has been debunked now, even if they keep on making the same arguments.
of the gospels but I had to give it up when it became clear that the details to be 'Interpreted ' had been invented in the first place. 
