The go a little easy on theists thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2014, 11:27 AM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
And, yes, I love to get your hatemail, too, Taqiyya Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 11:57 AM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(03-02-2014 12:33 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 10:59 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  I appreciate the apology Vosur. I did respond with insults myself and also goaded you on some occasions, and for that I apologize. Sometimes discussions of this sort get heated and it's tough to keep your cool. I will endeavor to keep mine.

Disingenuous and willfully dishonest behavior (such as your spamming regurgitated kalaam "arguments" in an atheist forum and refusing to acknowledge and/or address that it has and is being refuted and destroyed, and claiming to come here "looking for answers" when you are NOT) and those (YOU) who exhibit it are not civil and do not deserve civil treatment in return.

Consider the possibility that he has never encountered the refutation of the Kalām cosmological argument and is looking to learn why it is not correct.

To many people it seems reasonable, even convincing, at first blush. We know it has been thoroughly debunked, but he seems not to know that.

I think we can cut people a little slack to start with. Drinking Beverage

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
04-02-2014, 11:59 AM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(03-02-2014 10:30 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 08:05 PM)Vosur Wrote:  It's exactly the same as the age-old textbook example of deductive reasoning.
Not "exactly" the same.

(03-02-2014 08:05 PM)Vosur Wrote:  P1: All men are mortal.
P2: Socrates is a man.
C1: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

I can see what you mean, though. Tell you what, I'll give it some more thought and report back to you later on.

1. All men. 2. All mortal. 3. Socrates
Socrates is a mortal man.

I think the predicate 'entirely made of' throws a spanner in the works. One which isnt present here;

P1: All atoms have always existed.
P2: The Mona Lisa is an atom.
C1: Therefore....the Mona Lisa has always existed

They really are identical; they are precisely the same logical argument.

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
04-02-2014, 12:05 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(04-02-2014 11:16 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  If you want my opinion, Dawkins specifically wrote that book the way he did because he wanted to get hate mail. He deliberately put in the words that he knew would push the buttons of religious people (such as calling Yahweh "a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"). Forget for a second whether or not you think the statement is justified, you can't argue that it is meant to be inflammatory. He pushed those buttons for the same reason that Miley Cyrus does: to get more publicity for himself and his work. So, don't feel bad for Richard Dawkins, because I guarantee you that he relishes every piece of hate mail he gets, and likely would have been hugely disappointed if none had arrived in the first place.

He simply described in clear terms the God described in the Bible. If you think that is inflammatory, then it's because it is the unvarnished truth. Christopher Hitchens said almost precisely the same thing.

Quote:Dawkins is a shameless self-promoter, who is the intellectual equivalent of Howard Stern (in that he uses inflammatory statements in order to piss people off and promote himself) and he avoids supporting his opinion through legitimate intellectual debates with anyone who he knows can actually fight back. Seriously, refusing to debate William Lane Craig on the existence of God using the cover of Craig's beliefs on a completely unrelated matter? Since when has "I refuse to debate that person because he disagrees with me on an unrelated matter" been a legitimate excuse for running from a debate? Meanwhile, Dawkins seems to have no problem in his videos engaging with people like uneducated fundy Muslims, who he knows he can make to look like fools. Intellectually, he is the equivalent of a bully who doesn't like to pick on anyone his own size.

And yes, I would love it if Dawkins read the above and sent me some hatemail, lol.

Dawkins is an author; all authors are self-promoters. Your criticism loses its sting.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
04-02-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(04-02-2014 11:16 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Seriously, refusing to debate William Lane Craig on the existence of God using the cover of Craig's beliefs on a completely unrelated matter? Since when has "I refuse to debate that person because he disagrees with me on an unrelated matter" been a legitimate excuse for running from a debate?

Nobody should ever debate WLC, he's a worthless hack. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
04-02-2014, 12:11 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(04-02-2014 11:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 12:33 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Disingenuous and willfully dishonest behavior (such as your spamming regurgitated kalaam "arguments" in an atheist forum and refusing to acknowledge and/or address that it has and is being refuted and destroyed, and claiming to come here "looking for answers" when you are NOT) and those (YOU) who exhibit it are not civil and do not deserve civil treatment in return.

Consider the possibility that he has never encountered the refutation of the Kalām cosmological argument and is looking to learn why it is not correct.

Yes, that makes so much sense because of the way he is spamming it all over the forum.

Drinking Beverage

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 01:59 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(03-02-2014 11:02 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 10:54 PM)Vosur Wrote:  The whole point of this exercise was to show that the first premise of the Kalām cosmological argument is not sound because we have yet to witness the beginning of a thing's existence.

Well, obviously it is open to people to reject the first premise.
But you can also evaluate the Kalam Argument premises in terms of… how plausible is the NEGATION of those premises.

What are the possible/plausible negations of the first premise?

You're still getting ahead of yourself.

No one has ever seen the universe be created, so, anything regarding how it was created will be an assumption.

Sure, everything we've observed has had a cause. Now, that might make you tempted to to say that it is "reasonable" to assume that the universe must have a cause, because everything else we've seen has one. I can see where you'd get that. The problem is: what caused the universe? God? Well, what caused him?

Now, do you see the problem? You're going to have to explain that away with some sort of special pleading, like saying "God is eternal" or "God is timeless". That leaves us with two very important, and unanswered questions:

1) Why? Because you say so? Because your argument depends on it?

2) How do you know the universe doesn't possess those same qualities? Did you see the creation of the universe?


So, that being said, I'd say the negation of your premise is as unknowable and plausible as your unfounded premise itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 02:14 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(04-02-2014 12:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  He simply described in clear terms the God described in the Bible. If you think that is inflammatory, then it's because it is the unvarnished truth. Christopher Hitchens said almost precisely the same thing.
...
Dawkins is an author; all authors are self-promoters. Your criticism loses its sting.

Whether it is the truth or not, you don't say it that way in a published book unless you are actively looking to inflame people and generate hate mail. I haven't read any of Christopher Hitchens' books, but from the limited amount I have heard him speak, he seems to be pretty similar to Dawkins in his desire to get notoriety by inflaming religious people, so I don't know if he helps you much there.

All authors may be self-promoters, but they are not all shameless. Some thinkers are respectable, some are Richard Dawkins. Some singers are respectable, some singers are Miley Cyrus. I just hope Dawkins never decides to do a video of him naked riding a wrecking ball.

(04-02-2014 12:08 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Nobody should ever debate WLC, he's a worthless hack. Drinking Beverage

If so, then Dawkins should have welcomed the opportunity. Seriously, the opportunity to debate with a worthless hack who also happens to be one of those more famous Christian apologists? Seems like an easy target and a golden opportunity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 02:21 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(04-02-2014 02:14 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Blah blah blah...

All authors may be self-promoters, but they are not all shameless. Some thinkers are respectable, some are Richard Dawkins.


You only say that because he destroys your precious sky fairy. You don't like him, therefore he isn't "respectable". Fuck you.



Quote:If so, then Dawkins should have welcomed the opportunity. Seriously, the opportunity to debate with a worthless hack who also happens to be one of those more famous Christian apologists? Seems like an easy target and a golden opportunity.

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Craig doesn't debate, he cheats.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 02:24 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(04-02-2014 01:59 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  You're still getting ahead of yourself.

No one has ever seen the universe be created, so, anything regarding how it was created will be an assumption.

Sure, everything we've observed has had a cause. Now, that might make you tempted to to say that it is "reasonable" to assume that the universe must have a cause, because everything else we've seen has one. I can see where you'd get that. The problem is: what caused the universe? God? Well, what caused him?

Now, do you see the problem? You're going to have to explain that away with some sort of special pleading, like saying "God is eternal" or "God is timeless". That leaves us with two very important, and unanswered questions:

1) Why? Because you say so? Because your argument depends on it?

2) How do you know the universe doesn't possess those same qualities? Did you see the creation of the universe?


So, that being said, I'd say the negation of your premise is as unknowable and plausible as your unfounded premise itself.

I won't go too much into the argument that we've already had, but I think the whole question really comes down to this:

Is it reasonable to believe that an infinite cause and effect chain could exist?

If the answer is yes, then you have the infinite universe as your answer.

If the answer is no, then you need a first cause (one which does not require a cause of it's own) in order to break the infinite regress.

Feel free to let me know if I have missed something and am presenting a false dichotomy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: