If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-10-2013, 06:34 AM
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
Why hasn't x-cubed answered me?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2013, 10:02 AM
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
(14-10-2013 04:06 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(14-10-2013 03:06 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Anyone that claims to be a geocentrist YEC in this day and age is either completely ignorant of science (which you claim you are not) a blithering idiot (juries still out) or a conman (as you are not selling anything here I don't make this claim about you).

That's what I thought until I discovered Henry Morris. Morris was a YEC and he authored a well-regarded textbook on hydraulic engineering. He had a PhD in hydraulic engineering and held a professorial position in an engineering department. So he wasn't "ignorant of science" nor "a blithering idiot". I don't know if we can rule out conclusively that he wasn't a conman. He did publish books but I doubt that the readership was high enough to give him a substantial stream of income and he had a "day job". That of course in no way contributes to the veracity of YEC but it does challenge the stereotype.

Quote:To believe all that claptrap is to say that science doesn't work. If every field that would have to be in error over basic fundamental principles for your stated hypothesis to be correct would mean that nothing predicted by those fields should ever be able to be practically applied. Problem is Science works! From electricity to computers to quantum theory (that you use every time you go to the grocery store) to the car you drive to the phone in your pocket all proclaim Science works.

Morris' argument IIRC against the manifest success of science argument was that science and technology are separate domains and that what you are actually describing is technological success. The rebuttal to that is that technology is parasitic on science. His counterargument was examples such as the ancient Chinese discovery of explosives in the absence of chemistry. It was Morris' contention also that no technology relies on the veracity of the theory of evolution by natural selection. The rebuttal to that was usually antibiotic resistance, to which Morris would then reply that antibiotic resistance is "micro-evolution" and he is ok with that because it is not "real evolution".

The YEC account of the history and philosophy of science is fundamentally unsound but it is somewhat more elaborate than you seem to think. Morris pretty much created "Creation Science" and you should look to rebutting the strongest form of the YEC arguments rather than their weakest form. This book provides a comprehensive rebuttal of YEC and its derivatives.

When you add Geo-centrist to the YEC part it is exponentially worse. As to micro vs macro that is just bullshit and even the opponents know it. They had to come up with some excuse when shown verifiable proof of evolution. There are a few very bright people who are pushing the ID YEC propaganda and when confronted with the facts they usually rely on arguments from incredulity rather than any coherent explanation. "God did it cause I can't handle the fact that evolution is one of the more proven theories" seems to be the last bastion of evolution deniers.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2013, 08:07 PM
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
(14-10-2013 06:31 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  So I changed tactics. Fine. There is a god. And he is a dick. And I'd rather go to hell then spend a minute with that douchbag.

That is called a Pyrrhic victory. It isn't much of a tactic in the context of argument and debate because you have conceded the opposition's point. If the argument/debate is about the existence of a deity and you then concede the point in order to make a tangential point about the character of the deity you just spent time denying the existence of then it is a desperate and confused tactic which also suggests that you lack intellectual integrity. To your interlocutor it looks like you are just trying to score a point and are prepared to throw everything under a bus to do so.

If you are prepared to sacrifice the very premise of the argument/debate--viz. that the Trinity does not exist--then I think it is fair to say that your atheism is built on flimsy foundations. If it had firmer foundations you would have used those in your argument/debate rather than resorting to surrendering the point in contention.

Sometimes you have to accept that you gave a bad haircut and then stop to sharpen your scissors. You appear to want to carry on giving bad haircuts on the premise that good haircuts don't really matter. Your post was analagous to posting on a hairdressing forum that good haircuts don't matter.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
15-10-2013, 12:10 AM
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
^^ Dude... Come on.

It's purely legit.

For the purposes of argument she assumes God exists.

Then draws conclusion that in that case he's a shithead and should go fuck himself.

I fail to see how that's poor argument technique. To many Christians God *is* real, so asking them to examine his motives and behaviour is not a bad thing.

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
15-10-2013, 01:08 AM
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
(14-10-2013 02:09 AM)excubitor Wrote:  
(13-10-2013 09:01 PM)ivaneus Wrote:  Excubitor, if you continue to start your posts with sweeping generalizations like this the points you make afterward lose a lot of their credibility. Not all people feel the need to worship something. I myself worship nothing. And before you answer this, keep in mind that a semantic argument against this is an even weaker argument.
People who say that they do not worship anything invariably worship themselves. That might be regarded as a sweeping generalisation by some, but I state it as an emphatic truth.

If by "worship", you mean "regard self almost only in a self-deprecating way both with and without others present to mask feelings of inadequacy and uncertainty regarding oneself", I worship the fuck out of myself.
However if you mean "worship" as in "constant praise of oneself/something/somebody" then, you hit way off the mark. I doubt you could have hit the mark is it was the size of the universe with that "fact" O' yours.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
15-10-2013, 01:30 AM
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
(15-10-2013 12:10 AM)morondog Wrote:  ^^ Dude... Come on.

It's purely legit.

For the purposes of argument she assumes God exists.

Then draws conclusion that in that case he's a shithead and should go fuck himself.

I fail to see how that's poor argument technique. To many Christians God *is* real, so asking them to examine his motives and behaviour is not a bad thing.

No, not if the issue in contention is whether God exists. Saying "if He exists then he is a prick" does not demonstrate that He doesn't exist. How could it? The issue of Yahweh's character versus His existence are two separate matters. It is not a constradiction to assert both that "Yahweh is a prick" and "Yahweh exists". The inconsistency between Yahweh's behaviour in the OT and the claim that Yahweh is all-good is distinct from the matter of His existence.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 02:53 AM
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
(15-10-2013 01:30 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Saying "if He exists then he is a prick" does not demonstrate that He doesn't exist.

OK sure...

IMO that it should cast some doubt in any believer's mind though, when a supposedly perfect being (whose perfection includes being perfectly undetectable) supposedly acts in such human and petty ways.

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
15-10-2013, 03:19 AM
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
(14-10-2013 06:08 AM)Colourcraze Wrote:  
(13-10-2013 12:01 AM)excubitor Wrote:  That is why we worship God. God does not need our worship but he knows that by worshipping him we will benefit ourselves

Wait. All this time worship has been about US?!

I think I was doing it wrong.
no doubt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 03:26 AM
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
(14-10-2013 10:02 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(14-10-2013 04:06 AM)Chippy Wrote:  That's what I thought until I discovered Henry Morris. Morris was a YEC and he authored a well-regarded textbook on hydraulic engineering. He had a PhD in hydraulic engineering and held a professorial position in an engineering department. So he wasn't "ignorant of science" nor "a blithering idiot". I don't know if we can rule out conclusively that he wasn't a conman. He did publish books but I doubt that the readership was high enough to give him a substantial stream of income and he had a "day job". That of course in no way contributes to the veracity of YEC but it does challenge the stereotype.


Morris' argument IIRC against the manifest success of science argument was that science and technology are separate domains and that what you are actually describing is technological success. The rebuttal to that is that technology is parasitic on science. His counterargument was examples such as the ancient Chinese discovery of explosives in the absence of chemistry. It was Morris' contention also that no technology relies on the veracity of the theory of evolution by natural selection. The rebuttal to that was usually antibiotic resistance, to which Morris would then reply that antibiotic resistance is "micro-evolution" and he is ok with that because it is not "real evolution".

The YEC account of the history and philosophy of science is fundamentally unsound but it is somewhat more elaborate than you seem to think. Morris pretty much created "Creation Science" and you should look to rebutting the strongest form of the YEC arguments rather than their weakest form. This book provides a comprehensive rebuttal of YEC and its derivatives.

When you add Geo-centrist to the YEC part it is exponentially worse. As to micro vs macro that is just bullshit and even the opponents know it. They had to come up with some excuse when shown verifiable proof of evolution. There are a few very bright people who are pushing the ID YEC propaganda and when confronted with the facts they usually rely on arguments from incredulity rather than any coherent explanation. "God did it cause I can't handle the fact that evolution is one of the more proven theories" seems to be the last bastion of evolution deniers.
Only a moron would deny every kind of adaptation of the species which was described by Darwin in his case studies. We see it all through nature and dramatically accentuated by mankind in the breeding of vast arrays of varieties of creatures which would never have come to exist in the wild by natural selection.
This biological process of adaptation is called by some micro-evolution to differentiate this obvious and readily accepted form of evolution from the fanciful exaggeration of the process of evolution which we are told can change one kind of creature into another.

The truth of the matter is that God did make the creatures, whole, each of their own kind. Male and female created he them. That is the truth of the matter and if it be so that it is the truth (which it is) then science is not equipped to discover it, because a miracle of this kind cannot be proven by scientific method for the very simple reason that miracles are outside the domain of science, a truth which nobody can deny.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 03:30 AM
RE: If he exists, God is not someone I want to follow
(14-10-2013 08:07 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(14-10-2013 06:31 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  So I changed tactics. Fine. There is a god. And he is a dick. And I'd rather go to hell then spend a minute with that douchbag.

That is called a Pyrrhic victory. It isn't much of a tactic in the context of argument and debate because you have conceded the opposition's point. If the argument/debate is about the existence of a deity and you then concede the point in order to make a tangential point about the character of the deity you just spent time denying the existence of then it is a desperate and confused tactic which also suggests that you lack intellectual integrity. To your interlocutor it looks like you are just trying to score a point and are prepared to throw everything under a bus to do so.

If you are prepared to sacrifice the very premise of the argument/debate--viz. that the Trinity does not exist--then I think it is fair to say that your atheism is built on flimsy foundations. If it had firmer foundations you would have used those in your argument/debate rather than resorting to surrendering the point in contention.

Sometimes you have to accept that you gave a bad haircut and then stop to sharpen your scissors. You appear to want to carry on giving bad haircuts on the premise that good haircuts don't really matter. Your post was analagous to posting on a hairdressing forum that good haircuts don't matter.
The Cathy person is on my ignore list but sadly I was afflicted by her miserable words in your response. As you correctly point her logic is a complete oxymoron.
"I hate God, therefore God does not exist".

Is this how atheists think? Cathy would rather be in hell. Let us hope that she does not get what she wishes for. The Lord will bring into account every idle and careless word spoken in this life at the judgement day.
Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: