Best of from FB Apologetics group
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2015, 12:08 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(07-01-2015 07:24 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  He may be ending this one. It looks like he's trying to blame me and bow out, now.

I'm impressed with your patience... I don't get these kind of people. Cognitive dissonance I guess... He's very very keen to "not lose" to you. Fuck. None of these apologist crap vendors is ever interested in actual introspection or truth - all they want is to "win". It's like they think Christianity vs Atheism is a football match... Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2015, 12:15 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(07-01-2015 10:56 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(07-01-2015 07:24 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  He may be ending this one. It looks like he's trying to blame me and bow out, now.


Him: Rob, why should we debate this existence of something neither of us believe? It is odd that you think that is odd.
Are you in the habit of applying yourself to such useless endeavors?

Science 'answers' regarding evolution are neither complete or testable. Faith is required.

<Image saying "Theism is non-belief in a self-caused universe">



Me: Becuase you can't prove either of them right or wrong. Why should I give special weight to your god just because you believe in him?

That depends on what parts of evolution you're talking about. Still, evolution isn't an atheistic view, so I don't see why you keep propping it up in opposition to theism. A person that doesn't believe in gods doesn't necessarily believe in evloution, and a person who does doesn't necessarily reject evolution.

Evolution really isn't that important to my world view. Apart from getting a flu shot each year and listening to my doctor when telling me how long to take an antibiotic (both part of what a lot of creationists call "microevolution"), it has no bearing on my life. If someone disproved "macro"evolution, it wouldn't affect me. I'm fine following whatever has the most evidence supporting it.

Disproving evolution wouldn't in and of itself prove the existence of any gods. If we were left with no answer as to the origin of life, positing God as the "only" answer would still be a god of the gaps argument. You have to PROVE it, you can't just say "well, you don't have an answer, so lets just use mine".



Him: Rob, you havent explained the value of debating things neither of us believe. (Note the complete and utter dodge. He's getting desperate.)


Me: OP, this is getting off topic in a way that it doesn't have to. This is all in response to you saying that I must reject God to maintain my autonomy, and I don't see why that is necessarily true. According to non-Calvinist Christian doctrine, people have free will, and that is the basis of judgement. Ownership or not, people make choices and are responsible for them. How is that a lack of autonomy?


Him: But when you make assertions it is appropriate for me to address those as they all point back to the same thing.
This will/must continue as long as you make assertions that are either nonsensical or cannot be supported with your world view.

I am waiting for an answer.
(Same dodge.)


Me: OP, the answer is because it serves a good illustrative purpose, even if you don't like it.

Why limit yourself to the gods you personally deem worthy to discuss? It's not like you can bring any evidence to the table that your god is correct and any other nonfalsifiable god isn't. It just shows the bias that you're unwilling to see the world through any lens other than your own view point; a fact that shows when you start trying to explain atheism to atheists.


Also, OP, I'm awaiting your respopnse as to whether or not Christianity actually posits a lack of autonomy. If it doesn't, then your entire premise is flawed from the start, and any notions about hypothetical gods are moot. It looks like you're deliberately dodging the issue.

According to Christian teachings, are Christians responsible for their actions or not? If so, how is this a lack of autonomy?



Him: Rob, this thread is not about debating things neither of us believe in.
If you chose to have that discussion, I invite you to begin your own thread.
Stop hijacking mine.

Christianity teaches that God is our creator. He has the right to tell us how to behave. He has the fight to send sinners to hell (all, if He so chose).
Christians, by definition are not autonomous.

Christians are responsible for their actions same as all humans.
Autonomy is self government. The Christian accepts the authority of God, therefore they are not autonomous.
I think you might want to define the word responsible as in 'to whom'.



Me: OP, you're not arguing autonomy now, you're arguing force. God can force people to hell regardless of their decisions. You are no longer talking about the independence of making decisions and are now talking about God taking action despite the decisions. If you're going to argue autonomy, you have to stick to it.

Now, you could shift the goal posts and say I have skin in the game because I don't want to believe in a god that can unilaterally punish me. I would respond that I already live in a world where people can do that.

Your initial premise in the OP is flawed. You haven't demonstrated that I have "skin in the game".



Him: Authority applied by anyone besides yourself (autonomy) will require force. Can you think of an example where that is not the case?
Argument is not shifted as no human force tells you what to think, and you may cheat, steal etc and never get caught.

Romans 1 says you do have skin in the game.



Me: Now explain how that applies to autonomy.

I don't see the Bible as a source of universal truth, so quoting Bible verses at me serves no purpose other than to convince yourself that you're right. You still haven't proven I have skin in the game; you've only asserted it.



Him: Apparently we are getting hung up on this word.
Either you are not accountable or you are, isnt that simple?

<screenshot of definition of autonomy>



Me: It's also defined as the independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions.

However, you weren't talking about that when you shifted the conversation saying God can send anyone (or everyone) to hell if he chooses. Regardless of what God opts to do in that regard, it has no bearing on the ability to make decisions. In fact, claiming that God can do whatever he wants only furthers to prove that human actions don't influence his actions, ergo, no autonomy is lost by God existing as opposed to not existing.

You could posit a puppet-master god like some forms of Calvinism, but that doesn't appear to be the route you're taking.

You still haven't proven I have "skin in the game" which is a core conceit of your OP.



Him: Rob, I didn't shirt the argument; it was a facet of the discussion.

Apparently you are just fine, continue as you are. I've tried to lead you to truth, but that is not what you are interested in.
Have a good day.

Actually, i spent a whole lot of time on evidences in this thread, which negates your mockery.
(That last sentence was intended for someone else, I think, but I responded before I figured that out.)


Me: Nice dodge, OP. I have only responded directly to what you said and not mocked you. You made an assertion that I "have skin in the game" because my autonomy is at stake and cited that as a reason I cannot be neutral. That was all in your post. You haven't backed that assertion; you've simply made it.

Saying that you're trying to "lead me to truth" is just more arguing via assertion. If you have some way to demonstrate your claim, do so. If not, don't act like it's my fault for not taking your assertions on the value of "because you say so".

This guy proves that atheism is absurd. Why the fuck are you still an atheist? How can you stand owning an opinion which is so obviously absurd?

What is wrong with the absurd and being aware of it being absurd? I've posed this to you numerous times and you always just flee to never give it a response.

So what that it's absurd? That's not a bother to me.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2015, 09:31 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(08-01-2015 12:08 AM)morondog Wrote:  I'm impressed with your patience... I don't get these kind of people. Cognitive dissonance I guess... He's very very keen to "not lose" to you. Fuck. None of these apologist crap vendors is ever interested in actual introspection or truth - all they want is to "win". It's like they think Christianity vs Atheism is a football match... Rolleyes

Thanks. I take these groups as good practice seeing how well I can get my point across without snark. Also, I've met a few really nice and interesting people there. The OP of this thread seems to have a serious beef with atheism and can't stop saying stupid things, so I keep responding.

Also, at least three Christians started criticizing his approach both for being baseless and looking like he's quite insecure. Most of the "likes" on my posts come from Christians in that thread.


(08-01-2015 12:15 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(07-01-2015 10:56 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  This guy proves that atheism is absurd. Why the fuck are you still an atheist? How can you stand owning an opinion which is so obviously absurd?

What is wrong with the absurd and being aware of it being absurd? I've posed this to you numerous times and you always just flee to never give it a response.

So what that it's absurd? That's not a bother to me.

This is why I have Shitstain on ignore and don't generally click on his posts. He does nothing but threadshit. Honestly, simply seeing "The contents of this message are hidden because diddo97 is on your ignore list." in the thread seems like threadshitting enough. It'd be one thing if he's said anything within the last twelve months worth reading, but no.

On a brighter note, Huey Lewis & The New's Power of Love just came on, and I'm getting to be in a better mood! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
08-01-2015, 10:25 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
Wow! I ran into an "argument" refuting evolution. I stopped reading his post after the first premise:

1. Every mutation that we have ever observed was disadvantageous.

Most of the comments in the thread were people telling him this was wrong. Even people with a high-school level understanding of evolution would catch that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
08-01-2015, 10:52 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(08-01-2015 10:25 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Wow! I ran into an "argument" refuting evolution. I stopped reading his post after the first premise:

1. Every mutation that we have ever observed was disadvantageous.

Most of the comments in the thread were people telling him this was wrong. Even people with a high-school level understanding of evolution would catch that.

You could always let him know that in his case he's absolutely right.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2015, 10:17 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(08-01-2015 10:25 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Wow! I ran into an "argument" refuting evolution. I stopped reading his post after the first premise:

1. Every mutation that we have ever observed was disadvantageous.

Most of the comments in the thread were people telling him this was wrong. Even people with a high-school level understanding of evolution would catch that.

So, some of the more "sophisticated" apologists realize this claim is stupid and are now changing the topic of the discussion. I'm being asked if a mutation ever "increased the information" in DNA.

Several requests at what "information" means have not really been answered. I gave several examples of increased information. The goalposts have now been shifted to "increases in complexity". I've explained how several examples constitute an increase in complexity, and I'm being told it's just a rearranging of information.

The problem is, DNA has never been described as being anything other than pairings of A-Ts and C-Gs, so I have no idea where they're even going with this. I get the impression I'm being set up for some type of "abiogenesis is impossible" gotcha, but I can't really tell with all the topic shifting.

This is reaffirming my stance on not discussing evolution with creationists. I start out to explain why premise #1 of the OP was wrong, and I've gotten roped into no less than two subject changes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2015, 10:29 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(09-01-2015 10:17 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(08-01-2015 10:25 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Wow! I ran into an "argument" refuting evolution. I stopped reading his post after the first premise:

1. Every mutation that we have ever observed was disadvantageous.

Most of the comments in the thread were people telling him this was wrong. Even people with a high-school level understanding of evolution would catch that.

So, some of the more "sophisticated" apologists realize this claim is stupid and are now changing the topic of the discussion. I'm being asked if a mutation ever "increased the information" in DNA.

Several requests at what "information" means have not really been answered. I gave several examples of increased information. The goalposts have now been shifted to "increases in complexity". I've explained how several examples constitute an increase in complexity, and I'm being told it's just a rearranging of information.

The problem is, DNA has never been described as being anything other than pairings of A-Ts and C-Gs, so I have no idea where they're even going with this. I get the impression I'm being set up for some type of "abiogenesis is impossible" gotcha, but I can't really tell with all the topic shifting.

This is reaffirming my stance on not discussing evolution with creationists. I start out to explain why premise #1 of the OP was wrong, and I've gotten roped into no less than two subject changes.

Oh yeah, they like making up new words or new definitions of old words to mean what they want it to mean, then changing the definition if you show them to be wrong. The artificial distinction between macro and micro evolution is an example.

This gives them the ability to have any argument on the shifting sands of cognitive dissonance.

As an aside, I just watched "God is Not Dead' with my daughter. The dweeb in the movie argued that choice is the answer to the problem of evil. I really wanted to go Old Testament YHWH and smite someone after watching that. Bangin

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2015, 10:33 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(09-01-2015 10:29 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  As an aside, I just watched "God is Not Dead' with my daughter.

We shoulda done a before and after IQ test.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
09-01-2015, 11:35 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
Okay, this whole complexity thing just got really weird. Apparently she's arguing against something evolution has never cared about.

Her: Yes, there's a disconnect on what "more information" means, because I don't believe we've seen a real-world, scientifically observable example of a mutation producing new information, thus increasing and building upon the existing DNA resulting in a new organism emerging from what was originally there. We see variation, but nothing more, experientially.


Me: I guess I don't see why this is a problem. DNA has never been described as anything other than differeing amounts and orders of pairings of adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine. I've never heard anyone who believs in evolution as saying that DNA somehow became "more complex", and I don't see why DNA would have to become "more complex" for one organism to evnetually become a different organsim.

Also, regarding more variation: If some specimins of organism X differ enough to become orgaism Y, wouldn't that be both a "macro" evolution /and/ in increase in variation? I don't see how this is in any way a contradiction of what we have observed.



Unless I'm misreading what she's saying, her argument is "because evolution doesn't do what I think it should do, evolution and abiogenesis are false". Or something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2015, 12:36 PM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
Lol, now a different guy is telling me that the pepper moths never happened during the industrial revolution because getting a tail cut off can't carry on to offspring:

Quote:Plus the fact that physiological changes in no way affect the genetic code fixed in the organisms zygotes. That is why after generation upon generation of cutting off bull dogs tails. Bull dogs are still born with tails. So environmental pressures do not really have any affect on the genetic expression of the reproduction of the offspring. The offspring will maintain the traits inherent with in the population in which the parents reside. Finches will always be finches; guppies will always be guppies. and fruit flies will always remain fruit flies from generation to generation with only ever slight variations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: