Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2013, 01:06 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 11:32 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:And then solipsism is a highly discredited philosophy anyway, so I'd say you took some crappy idea and made it even crappier with absolutely no goal or resolution in mind, nor an answer to your own question or anything actually prepared to back up your own claims.
Perhaps, and based on your solipsism, if you cannot prove you are real your claim to special knowledge concerning God's lack of existence is likewise invalid. Wink I'll add this though--the infinite regression of "How do I know you posted that video?" to "How do I know that birth certficate isn't forged?" and etc. is my take on the "How do we know the 27 authors of the NT existed? How do we know that didn't collude?" and it's the same garbage except that the Bible gets handled different because it's making large claims, "special pleading claims" and etc. Right?
You always seem to be arguing from the wrong direction. First of all, it's not "my solipsism". Solipsism is an epistemological movement based on philosophers like Descartes. Second, if nothing in this universe is real, then the idea of god, and self-proclaimed evidence for god's existence is false. I know you theists love to argue from the wrong side, but the point still remains - if there is absolutely no reason to believe something, then why believe it? This holds true in modern day life, and even more so if you apply solipsism.

Also, your infinite regression example is pretty weak because first, it's much simpler to prove someone posted a video than it is to prove 27 other people wrote the NT, and second, because since the onset of rationalism, we don't have to doubt what is possible as much as we have to doubt what is unlikely. This is why atheists say theists are irrational (or at least this is why I say it). If you don't know what rationalism truly is, feel free to read this: http://scepticalprophet.wordpress.com/20...tionalism/

Tl;dr - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

I can claim to have a tree in my backyard and it would not be irrational for you to believe me even if I didn't provide proof. That's because it is mathematically and rationally likely that I do. However, if I claim I have a cat riding a unicorn shooting rainbow lazers in my backyard, I would have to provide proof for you to believe me because it is not mathematically plausible or rational to believe that.

This is what being rational is. There is no rational reason to believe in something that has no evidence of existing. You keep trying to shift the burden of proof but as it is the theist making the irrational claim, therefore the burden of proof is on the theist (or on anyone making an irrational claim).

Science, logic and how they destroy religious arguments @ http://scepticalprophet.wordpress.com/

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.
- Isaac Asimov.
Faith means not wanting to know what is true.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Sceptical Prophet's post
28-02-2013, 08:42 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
[Image: 6072c3f98f422cbfe116f89220478223.thumbnail.jpg]

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-02-2013, 08:47 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid264519

This is the post that made me realize he is likely nothing more than a troll. He says that "theists may now applaud." He seems to either think that there are theists actually paying attention, or that he is saying that "this is what a theist would say and think they had won."

Either way, he is not worth the time.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 09:14 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:If you mean are papers on evolution peer-reviewed by creationists, then, no, that doesn't happen. Creationists have nothing to add to the discussion… Look, PJ, instead of fucking around, present your goddamn scant evidence. Or shut the fuck up.

Chas, here are the issues as you present them in this thread and others as well, with subtler tones:

1. If we debate something like Evolution/Creation, creationists have nothing to offer.

2. If we debate the existence of a God who communicates rock solid proof only to adherents, we have to submit to peer review by skeptics. (Indeed, there will be more skeptics on this thread than believers. )

Do I have right your boundaries for “honestly looking at evidence”? This is why you come off as a sham IMHO.


Quote: While at the same time your standard of evidence for the existence of god, not only a god but your god, is very low...
And again, you must have special evidence since I’ve neither produced evidence for God nor my defined standards for evidence beyond pointing out the above hypocrisy that is rampant among members here.


Quote: Your outlandish standard of evidence proves no point. We have never been able to observe a god, detect him in the laboratory, reach a dead end in science that requires a supernatural explanation, or anything else that supports the existence of something beyond the natural world.
Really, I didn’t know? J I’ve pointed out how the Bible says such evidence is reserved for those who seek, ask and knock… with an open mind not as “I’ll disprove that dirty SOB doesn’t exist!” Wait for it… a post from Vosur saying bu-bu-but I was interested and couldn’t find evidence… before I point out from this very thread how he said he was born an Atheist and never had received evidence in church and therefore… he girds my point. Seek… find.

Let's pool our evidence and have a discussion. Y'all present as much towering, empirical evidence as you like that there is no God, and then I'll do the same, presenting my scant and pathetic evidence that there is a God. Ready, set, go!

[Image: wddvm.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 09:16 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Either way, he is not worth the time.
Agreed, stop wasting so much time on me. You have a goofy way of ignoring me. Thanks for sharing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 09:18 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
I would think that a thread being a waste of time is best demonstrated by not posting in it. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
28-02-2013, 09:22 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(28-02-2013 09:18 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I would think that a thread being a waste of time is best demonstrated by not posting in it. Tongue
Touche. But it is not the thread I am addressing, it is the other posters.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 09:28 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2013 09:38 AM by Chas.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(28-02-2013 09:14 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:If you mean are papers on evolution peer-reviewed by creationists, then, no, that doesn't happen. Creationists have nothing to add to the discussion… Look, PJ, instead of fucking around, present your goddamn scant evidence. Or shut the fuck up.

Chas, here are the issues as you present them in this thread and others as well, with subtler tones:

1. If we debate something like Evolution/Creation, creationists have nothing to offer.

2. If we debate the existence of a God who communicates rock solid proof only to adherents, we have to submit to peer review by skeptics. (Indeed, there will be more skeptics on this thread than believers. )

Do I have right your boundaries for “honestly looking at evidence”? This is why you come off as a sham IMHO.

1. Peer review of a paper on evolution is not a creation/evolution debate. Your comment has nothing to do with peer review.

2. If you can not provide evidence, then you don't have evidence. Things that only you can see do not meet the definition of evidence.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-02-2013, 09:30 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(28-02-2013 09:22 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 09:18 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I would think that a thread being a waste of time is best demonstrated by not posting in it. Tongue
Touche. But it is not the thread I am addressing, it is the other posters.
Sillies. Big Grin I think PJ needs an assist...
[Image: gwynethpaltrow09sept1006.jpg]
Image of god. Checkmate, atheists! Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
28-02-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(28-02-2013 09:14 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  2. If we debate the existence of a God who communicates rock solid proof only to adherents, we have to submit to peer review by skeptics. (Indeed, there will be more skeptics on this thread than believers. )
What is the evidence of it? I could not believe it, but in the contrast to point 1: Evolution has evidence in fossil records and genetic data that establishing why the idea holds up.

What makes you state a case of a God that communicates rock solid proof ONLY to adherents?

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: