New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-07-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
(22-07-2015 12:15 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 11:14 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Drewpaul - You're essentially asserting magic. We're unfamiliar with magic.

You can't walk into a room and say "Magic happened! You have to prove it didn't!" and expect people to take you seriously.

Only in the realm of religious claims are people brazen enough to say that the listener has the burden of proof.

The belief we owe the existence of the universe and sentient life to a Creator isn't a magical claim anymore than we owe the existence of a laptop as the result of design and engineering. What non-magical explanation do you offer for the existence of the universe and sentient life?

Please watch this, as it deals with the Magic element you're asserting and gives my reply more clearly than I could. It's 10 minutes long. When you're done watching, please tell me you did and we can discuss it. I'd be glad to. Smile




"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 01:25 PM
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
Unfogged...

Quote:Atheism doesn't need evidence as it is a default position of not accepting the claim that a god exists until there is evidence for that claim.

So atheism is the non-thinking persons automatic position? The claim there is no evidence in favor of theism is false. The reason you reject evidence in favor of theism is because you believe there is a better explanation (or at least a preferred one).

Quote:Your incredulity is not evidence and, given phrases like 'evolution coupled with natural selection', I suspect you have a somewhat distorted view of what current evolutionary theory is.

You're incredulity regarding the existence of a Creator isn't evidence either...

Quote:Everything we have investigated so far turned out to be the result of "mindless" processes.

Everything investigated so far is the result of mindless process assuming that it is in fact a mindless process all the way down. If it isn't in fact a mindless process all the way down all your evidence is meaningless. Secondly its poor evidence on the fact of it. The function and operation of a laptop can be completely explained without an appeal to a designer or creator but we know that doesn't prove it was the result of a mindless process.

Quote:That provides a basis for extrapolation that future discoveries will fall into the same category. It may not be proof that there isn't a god behind it all, but the time to believe that is when you find evidence that actually supports that conclusion. Until such evidence is found, the rational thing to do is to continue investigating and withhold belief in things that have not been demonstrated.

Do you also lack belief that we owe the existence of the universe and sentient beings to unintended mechanistic processes?

The bearded dude

Quote:You are all kinds of wrong. You say someone was murdered, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. If all you have is a dead body, then all we can agree on is that the person is dead. I reject your claim of murder through lack of evidence. My rejection is of your claim, it can't be a claim in and of itself as it is dependent upon your claim.

I don't deny if I claim a deceased person was murdered I have an obligation to provide facts that comport with that belief. If having done so you still reject the claim then you would have to provide at least as much or greater evidence the death was the result of natural causes. The counter claim it wasn't murder is defacto a claim it was natural causes.

Quote:And yet, science shows us how to describe the universe in such a way that it can indeed arise from natural, non-living processes.

I look forward to hearing about that...

Rocket,

Quote:Please watch this, as it deals with the Magic element you're asserting and gives my reply more clearly than I could. It's 10 minutes long. When you're done watching, please tell me you did and we can discuss it. I'd be glad to. Smile

I'm a philosophical theist...not apart of any organized religion. Kirk doesn't speak for me, I speak for myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 01:29 PM
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
"I don't deny if I claim a deceased person was murdered I have an obligation to provide facts that comport with that belief. If having done so you still reject the claim then you would have to provide at least as much or greater evidence the death was the result of natural causes. The counter claim it wasn't murder is defacto a claim it was natural causes."

Rejecting your claim, does not mean I am making a claim. You are inserting a claim on top of the rejected claim.

Claim: Person A was murdered
I reject this claim. (no claim is being made) I think this person died of natural causes. (this is a new claim but it is not contingent upon the rejection of your murder claim. And it does not logically follow that by rejecting a claim, I am by default making a claim)

"I look forward to hearing about that..."

You should look into science then. Physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc, all paint a picture of natural, non-sentient processes from which the universe arose as well as life within the universe. No magic needed.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 01:36 PM
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
Quote:You should look into science then. Physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc, all paint a picture of natural, non-sentient processes from which the universe arose as well as life within the universe. No magic needed.

If so why are you still unwilling to man up and make a claim or an opinion regarding this matter? If all this information and evidence doesn't warrant a claim on your behalf why should it warrant belief on my behalf?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 01:42 PM
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
I didn't say Kirk spoke for you, and that wasn't the part of the video I wanted you to watch.

However, Kirk (and his colleague) make several of the same arguments you are making, including the "magic" part you and I were discussing earlier, and I thought the video would make the best way of answering you. I still do. You should watch it and understand what my position is before you engage with me, no?

As to the murder scene, think of it this way. You show me a body and say, "look, it's dead, it must have been murdered!" I, the investigator, must first consider the source of the testimonial evidence: Do you have a reason your perceptions might not be accurate in describing the event. Oh, it's your wife, about whom you care deeply, and you're emotionally connected to the situation. Got it. So I should probably be skeptical about your murder claim. Now, I calmly look at the evidence, and I see that she had a history of heart problems, that there are no holes in her, that there is no gun and none of the chemical tests show any form of drug or other poison in her system, nor anything that indicates foul play.

But you keep insisting, no, it was murder! It had to be! Just look closer. So I look, and I find flushed face (cherry reddish colour) swollen jugular and carotid artery, a blueish grey tinge around nose, eyes and finger tips (referred to as cyanosis, caused by a lack of oxygen to the tissues), to show the death is due to a heart attack (Acute Myocardial Infarction). I show you these symptoms, and you say, "No, I have right here her journal that says she thought someone was out to get her."

I tell you that may be so, or may just be a paranoid delusion of hers, but THIS is a heart attack death. A death of natural causes. And yet you persist, apparently not hearing any of the things I'm telling you about your wife.

That's too bad, because at some point in our exchange I'm going to realize your emotions are just to attached to the situation to really evaluate the evidence with a critical eye, and turn to call the coroner, ambulance, etc., while ignoring anything else you have to say.

The point of my little allegory there is to show why we must first establish the grounds upon which we are debating. If you cannot listen to what we're trying to tell you, as the investigators of the claim, then it's really kinda pointless, now, isn't it?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 01:48 PM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2015 01:53 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
(22-07-2015 01:36 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  
Quote:You should look into science then. Physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc, all paint a picture of natural, non-sentient processes from which the universe arose as well as life within the universe. No magic needed.

If so why are you still unwilling to man up and make a claim or an opinion regarding this matter? If all this information and evidence doesn't warrant a claim on your behalf why should it warrant belief on my behalf?

What are you talking about? Do you have so little understanding of science that you don't understand how it makes and tests claims?

The Big Bang Theory is a claim about the universe's earliest knowable origins and a description of its current state from t=0 to now. It is a scientific claim supported by multitudes of evidence (Red Shift, Cosmic Background Radiation, etc).

Life is redox chemistry, which can and does occur abiotically. Life originated from the basics of redox chemistry in deep sea hydrothermal vents. The evidence for this is the similarity of the redox chemistry among all life as well as the common ancestry of all life. The early Earth (as evidenced through geology and geochemistry) shows us the conditions of the early Earth and our observations of deep sea hydrothermal vents show that they contain the necessary ingredients for life to be able to begin.




Your claim is that some sort of sentience or intelligence or god did it. Please show me a god is plausible to exist. Then we can go from there for your claims.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 01:57 PM
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
(22-07-2015 01:25 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  
Quote:Atheism doesn't need evidence as it is a default position of not accepting the claim that a god exists until there is evidence for that claim.

So atheism is the non-thinking persons automatic position? The claim there is no evidence in favor of theism is false. The reason you reject evidence in favor of theism is because you believe there is a better explanation (or at least a preferred one).

I did not say "non-thinking person". Nice strawman. I have looked at the evidence presented to me so far for theism and I have found it all based on faulty logic and/or wishful thinking. If you think you have evidence that doesn't fall into those categories please present it.

Quote:
Quote:Your incredulity is not evidence and, given phrases like 'evolution coupled with natural selection', I suspect you have a somewhat distorted view of what current evolutionary theory is.

You're incredulity regarding the existence of a Creator isn't evidence either...

You are off the mark again. I am not saying that there is no god. I am saying that the evidence presented to me so far does not give me reason to believe one exists.

Quote:
Quote:Everything we have investigated so far turned out to be the result of "mindless" processes.

Everything investigated so far is the result of mindless process assuming that it is in fact a mindless process all the way down. If it isn't in fact a mindless process all the way down all your evidence is meaningless. Secondly its poor evidence on the fact of it. The function and operation of a laptop can be completely explained without an appeal to a designer or creator but we know that doesn't prove it was the result of a mindless process.

Laptops are not self-replicating organisms and they are not naturally occurring. There is no process we have ever observed that could reasonably explain a laptop self-assembling. The same is not true for what we observe in nature.

The idea that there could be a mind at the bottom of the chain is irrelevant to the fact that what we have found so far does not require one. Theists used to belief all life was directly created by a god but know that we understand the mechanisms involved their god has been relegated to just abiogenesis which hasn't been cracked yet. Maybe they are right, but it sure looks like a god of the gaps argument to me.

Quote:
Quote:That provides a basis for extrapolation that future discoveries will fall into the same category. It may not be proof that there isn't a god behind it all, but the time to believe that is when you find evidence that actually supports that conclusion. Until such evidence is found, the rational thing to do is to continue investigating and withhold belief in things that have not been demonstrated.

Do you also lack belief that we owe the existence of the universe and sentient beings to unintended mechanistic processes?

As far as making a claim goes, yes. As I said before, everything we have learned so far involves mindless processes with no intent behind them so I think it is reasonable to go on the assumption that that is all there is but I don't claim to be able to prove that. I just think it is what is most likely true given the abundance of evidence we have for "mechanistic processes" and the lack of evidence that can only be explained by a conscious mind.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
22-07-2015, 02:12 PM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2015 02:18 PM by Chas.)
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
(22-07-2015 11:57 AM)drewpaul Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 10:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is not unreasonable as there are evidenced reasons to think so. Evolution is a mindless algorithm that is sufficient to explain the diversity of life.

If defined as change through descent evolution is a fact and can be used as evidence of your point of view (I don't deny there is evidence that favors atheism). However, I remain skeptical if evolution coupled with natural selection alone produces the variety of life we observe. Secondly its insufficient evidence to claim its a mindless algorithm all the way down so to speak.

Your incredulity is not an argument.

There is no evidence that it is not a mindless, blind algorithm. In fact, replication, mutation, and differential reproductive success are provably sufficient to result in evolution. That you don't believe that it can explain the diversity of forms we see is probably indicative of your not understanding that the commonalities of all life vastly outweigh the differences.

All life on earth is based on the same RNA/DNA chemistry. Every damn bit of it. The differences are minor compared to that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 02:21 PM
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
(22-07-2015 12:46 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  
Quote:Are you aware that evidence is merely facts that comport with a belief?

That has to be the most absurd definition of evidence ever.

Absurd or not, that's what it is. The way you substantiate a belief is to provide facts that comport or agree with such a belief. The type of evidence in favor of either our respective beliefs is circumstantial, evolution is a fact you offered that comports with your belief we owe our existence to mindless mechanistic forces. Did you think submitting that evidence was absurd?

No, it absolutely is not. That may be the way you happen to select and present evidence, but that is not what evidence is. Evidence consists of salient facts, some may support a position, some may contradict it.

Quote:
Quote:Of course I can make a case from facts in support of my opinion. Let's be clear here though, regardless of why you reject belief in God or gods that is a claim in its own right, true? Do you also reject the claim (on the same basis) the universe and sentient life is the result of mindless mechanistic forces?

Do you also reject the claim (on the same basis) the universe and sentient life is the result of mindless mechanistic forces?

Do you?

No, the evidence is consistent with that claim, and there is no evidence contradicting it.

Quote:Evidence is objectively verifiable.
You are not very good at this. Not good at all.



I'm just warming up...

Oh, goody. So far, you have shown poor understanding of evidence and of science.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 02:28 PM
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
Can't count to 13.7 billion?

Don't know the meaning of words like "proof", "evidence", "theory", "method", "model", "science", "fact", "claim", or "fallacy"?

Capable of lying repeatedly, in defense of a really comfortable idea?

Can you say the same thing twice, after proof was offered that you were lying the first time?

Become a Creationist! (Inquire inside... but not too much inquiry. We don't like that sort of thing around here.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: