Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-03-2010, 11:56 PM
Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
I have noticed a pattern recently:
  1. A perfectly well-intentioned thread is started for casual discussion.
  2. I make a post in this thread.
  3. martinb59 enters the thread with a response to my post.
  4. Flaming ensues.

Naturally, this isn't what the forum is supposed to be about. This is not a forum established as a personal battlefield for me and martinb59. The constant warring and trading of insults has resulted in many threads that may have otherwise resulted in a productive discussion being engulfed in the ever-expanding war between the two of us. Which thread concerns which topic of conflict isn't exactly clear any more; all that's certain is that the two of us are constantly at each others' throats.
I would like to apologize for this, and in an effort to cut down on the constant derails I am establishing this thread. Whenever martinb59 has an issue with me, or I with him, I will attempt to relocate the bickering to this thread before the original thread is destroyed. martin, if you would help me with this as well, I would be very grateful. Anyone else who notices us getting out of hand, well, tell us to take it here. I really would prefer that the forum wasn't consumed by constant insults. This is, after all, supposed to be a community of thinkers, and in the absence of any clear moderation team we have to regulate ourselves.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2010, 06:36 AM
 
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
Great idea, Unbeliever. I respect the fact that you have taken this plan of action. Smile

One thing I want to point out about martin (and I know he'll be reading this later on, so martin please heed my advice)...

You have on a few occassions attacked Unbeliever specifically about his age. This is uncalled for. Although I appreciated Nahuel's thread asking our ages (nothing wrong with that), it appears you have used Unbeliever's confession of age as a target point. You can't seem to believe that a person of his age can have enough experience to talk about the various topics on this site.

To that, sir, I say 'shame on you'. You had mentioned in one post that you have a son who is about the same age. Do you treat him with the same type of age discrimination ("you're too young to know what you're talking about, so you're automatically wrong!") My two kids are 6 and 2, and I go out of my way to ensure they are heard 'equally'. While their experiences are no where near mine, I do no justice to them by dismissing their thoughts as merely 'childish'.

Think about what I have said. You and I are probably the closest in age on this forum...if age matters so much to you, then you know my thoughts should be at your 'maturity' level.
Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2010, 12:12 PM
 
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
I love it great idea!

Supermanlives once again we disagree. If we were on board that was gaming related, our age would have nothing to with it, Unbeliever would have way more experience than me. I took logic, debate, and apologetics 31 years ago. And I had the same discussion then that he is having now. The arguments that he posted are the same ones we discussed then. And they are a waste of time, experience tells me that, I have never seen anyone, in my experience who is an atheist become a theist, because of Kalam and on the other side, I have never seen a theist become an atheist if Kalam was refuted.

What I tell my kids 18, 16,141/2, Is you will never get any where with a heard mentality. Don't dredge up things from the past, look at fresh ways to solve problems. I looked at Unbelievers threads from the past not one was his opinion on something, so I encouraged him to write something, not sure if "arguments" was in a response to that, but those are age old, arguments, that will not be solved, and his opinion. If unbeliever was my kid I would have him write his opinion on something, doesn't have to be deep, doesn't have to conform to logic, he can quote sources, and public opinions, just show some thoughts that are his. I show my son this page all the time, and when he has time, he is going to start posting as well. I tell my son in every school debate he does, to take the side that you don't believe in, try and prove yourself wrong. I took a two year apologetics course and my term Paper was on the Futility of Apologetics and I got an A on it. That is true skeptic in my opinion, that is a true free thinker. SO unbeliever, or supermanlives take the other side and prove God exists. To use a modified Pascals wager, either your belief will be strengthened or you will believe in God, either way YOU will win.

In my experience the skeptic and I included myself, and yes you can be a skeptic and be a theist, I wrote a post about modern Christianity not being about God, that is skeptical, the skeptic is afraid of being wrong, afraid of their thoughts dismantled. Most skeptics are negative people, they look for flaws in everything, go out on a limb write something from your heart about atheism, I will write a quick post, just something I thought of last night, maybe you do the same?
Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2010, 12:53 PM
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
(13-03-2010 12:12 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Supermanlives once again we disagree. If we were on board that was gaming related, our age would have nothing to with it, Unbeliever would have way more experience than me.

This is completely irrelevant, but allow me a moment to brag: yeah, I'd have more experience than most people on a gaming board. I mean, I'm majoring in computers for the express purpose of becoming a video game programmer, and I spend nearly every free minute gaming.
I like games. Big Grin

Quote:I took logic, debate, and apologetics 31 years ago. And I had the same discussion then that he is having now. The arguments that he posted are the same ones we discussed then. And they are a waste of time, experience tells me that, I have never seen anyone, in my experience who is an atheist become a theist, because of Kalam and on the other side, I have never seen a theist become an atheist if Kalam was refuted.

If you think that these arguments are a waste of time, you don't have to participate on the forum.

Quote:What I tell my kids 18, 16,141/2, Is you will never get any where with a heard mentality. Don't dredge up things from the past, look at fresh ways to solve problems.

Again, if the only objection that you can raise is that they are old arguments, then you've probably lost. You have to have something more than that.

Quote:I looked at Unbelievers threads from the past not one was his opinion on something

Bollocks.

Quote:so I encouraged him to write something

You call insulting me "encouragement"?

Quote:not sure if "arguments" was in a response to that

It wasn't.

Quote:but those are age old, arguments, that will not be solved, and his opinion.

Actually, they're logic. If you have a rebuttal to them, present it. The age of the arguments does nothing to detract from their validity.

Quote:If unbeliever was my kid I would have him write his opinion on something, doesn't have to be deep, doesn't have to conform to logic, he can quote sources, and public opinions, just show some thoughts that are his.

Everything I post is my own opinion, martin. You maintaining that it isn't does nothing to change that fact. Just because I use logic and evidence to support my arguments doesn't mean that I didn't come to these ideas on my own.

Quote:I show my son this page all the time, and when he has time, he is going to start posting as well.

Cool. Say hi to him from me. Smile

Quote:I tell my son in every school debate he does, to take the side that you don't believe in, try and prove yourself wrong.

Why?

Quote:I took a two year apologetics course and my term Paper was on the Futility of Apologetics and I got an A on it. That is true skeptic in my opinion, that is a true free thinker.

Congratulations. You proved your own efforts futile. So what?

Quote:SO unbeliever, or supermanlives take the other side and prove God exists.

Why? There isn't any evidence to support the idea.

Quote:In my experience the skeptic and I included myself, and yes you can be a skeptic and be a theist

I believe you. I know many skeptic theists.

Quote:the skeptic is afraid of being wrong, afraid of their thoughts dismantled.

Bollocks. The entire point of skepticism is to believe only that which is supported by evidence, the willingness to accept that you're wrong if the evidence shows it.

Quote:Most skeptics are negative people, they look for flaws in everything

Yep. Unless we point out the problems we see, we won't explore them, and if we don't explore them we can't find out the truth.

Quote:go out on a limb write something from your heart about atheism

Like what? Atheism isn't a belief system. It's a single thing: the lack of belief in a god.
You still seem to be under the impression that I am an atheist first and foremost. I'm not. I'm a skeptic. All my positions, atheism included, arise from this.

Quote:I will write a quick post, just something I thought of last night, maybe you do the same?

I'd be interested to hear what you have to say, but I really can't write anything about atheism itself. Atheism itself doesn't entail anything. It doesn't have anything that's mandatory. It's a single thing. I could write about why I'm an atheist, but none of my other positions actually come from my atheism.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2010, 02:23 PM
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
I brought this part over from the sand castle thread:

One more thing, martin. You often object to my use of logic and pointing out fallacies, saying that it isn't worth reponding to because it's "unoriginal" and that I never express myself. Well, I do. It just so happens that I express my thoughts on a subject through logic.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2010, 06:19 PM
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
Great idea. You two are been bickering in basically every thread, and very impressively, at the time too.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2010, 04:12 PM
 
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
You will take this the wrong way because your ego will get in the way, but you have a superficial knowledge of most posts I have seen you reply to.

Take the chicken breeding example. You said "all it would do is get rid of chickens with small breasts" there are defective genes in humans and animals. When you breed animals and humans for that matter, that have a trait that you like with another animal with a trait that you like you double up on there defective genes, you can eliminate that animal if the defective gene is multiplied. Some royal families have hemophilia, Tay-Sachs disease in eastern European Jews. So the question to the vet could be "knowing how defective genes duplicate in breeding, how does that knowledge effect evolution since along with the gene you like you also are multiplying the one you don't?" It's deeper than "you would get rid of chickens with small breasts"

Same thing with Kalam, premise one and two are very complex or very simple from your point of view, but if you got into a debate with someone who understood those two premises and what they mean you would get shredded. LIke said to summarize the Kalam argument the way way did shows your inexperience and lack of depth, no matter what side you believe the argument is way more complex than you or I are capable of discussing and therefore I would argue a waste of time. When you can answer Cantorian set theory, transfinite arithmetic, the ontological status of sets, the nature of time as tensed or tenseless, Zeno's Paradoxes, Kant's First Antinomy, not just that but Kant said " that by understanding the sources and limits of human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical questions. He asked if an object can be known to have certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects about which the mind can think must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality", How about an infinite past, not possible, contemporary Big Bang cosmology (including critiques of alternative or non-standard cosmological theories such as the Steady State model, the Oscillating model, the Vacuum Fluctuation model, and Quantum Gravity models), thermodynamics and physical eschatology and that is to just discuss premise 1.

You said "Virtual particles are things which begin to exist with no cause." I am sure you read that, but let's assume you didn't, Tell me under what conditions you got virtual particles to exist? And without those conditions would they exist?
Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2010, 04:41 PM
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
(14-03-2010 04:12 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Take the chicken breeding example. You said "all it would do is get rid of chickens with small breasts" there are defective genes in humans and animals. When you breed animals and humans for that matter, that have a trait that you like with another animal with a trait that you like you double up on there defective genes, you can eliminate that animal if the defective gene is multiplied. Some royal families have hemophilia, Tay-Sachs disease in eastern European Jews. So the question to the vet could be "knowing how defective genes duplicate in breeding, how does that knowledge effect evolution since along with the gene you like you also are multiplying the one you don't?" It's deeper than "you would get rid of chickens with small breasts"

I'm sorry Martin, but I'm slightly confused there. Are you talking about inbreeding, since you would start with only one organism with the desirable trait? Or are you talking about negative traits attached to positive ones?

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2010, 05:13 PM (This post was last modified: 14-03-2010 05:19 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
(14-03-2010 04:12 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Take the chicken breeding example. You said "all it would do is get rid of chickens with small breasts" there are defective genes in humans and animals. When you breed animals and humans for that matter, that have a trait that you like with another animal with a trait that you like you double up on there defective genes, you can eliminate that animal if the defective gene is multiplied. Some royal families have hemophilia, Tay-Sachs disease in eastern European Jews. So the question to the vet could be "knowing how defective genes duplicate in breeding, how does that knowledge effect evolution since along with the gene you like you also are multiplying the one you don't?" It's deeper than "you would get rid of chickens with small breasts"

No, actually, it really isn't.
This is the question you asked:

martinb59 Wrote:Don't want to hear the usual arguments from evolutionists, maybe explain what happens to animals with selective breeding? If I breed a chicken to have larger breasts, what characteristics die out? Or do they die out?

Nothing about defective genes in there. You are, in essence, accusing me of not answering a question that you didn't ask. If you want to talk about defective genes and evolution, say so.
Anyway.
The defective gene might be passed on. The key word here is "might". Since sexual reproduction results in an organism with half its genes from its father and half from its mother, there is no telling whether or not it will get any one gene.
Even if the gene is passed on, those who carry it will die out, resulting in a lower rate of animals having that gene.

Quote:Same thing with Kalam, premise one and two are very complex or very simple from your point of view, but if you got into a debate with someone who understood those two premises and what they mean you would get shredded.

This is the difference between us, martin. You make all these assertions - that the Bible talks about dinosaurs, that I have no understanding of the Kalam cosmological argument, et cetera - but you never, ever present any evidence to support your claims. When you do present any evidence at all, it is flawed. When I point this out, you either insult me and leave the thread or you simply repeat yourself.
So here's one last chance for you. Explain exactly how my understanding of the Kalam cosmological argument is flawed. If you cannot do so, then give me a link to a more detailed version. After all, you must have heard one, because you keep saying that my version is too simplistic.

Quote:no matter what side you believe the argument is way more complex than you or I are capable of discussing and therefore I would argue a waste of time. When you can answer Cantorian set theory, transfinite arithmetic, the ontological status of sets, the nature of time as tensed or tenseless, Zeno's Paradoxes, Kant's First Antinomy

A prime example of what I said above: you make assertions, then, when pressed, simply repeat them.
I have asked you before to explain this. What do these things have to do with the Kalam cosmological argument? Unless you can explain why, you're just blowing smoke in an effort to distract me.

Quote:Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality", How about an infinite past, not possible, contemporary Big Bang cosmology (including critiques of alternative or non-standard cosmological theories such as the Steady State model, the Oscillating model, the Vacuum Fluctuation model, and Quantum Gravity models), thermodynamics and physical eschatology and that is to just discuss premise 1.

Again, I have never supported the infinite-past model. I specifically stated - twice - that I do not.

Quote:You said "Virtual particles are things which begin to exist with no cause." I am sure you read that, but let's assume you didn't, Tell me under what conditions you got virtual particles to exist? And without those conditions would they exist?

Once again, virtual particles are not the core of my rebuttal. They assist, yes, but the key point is that there is no causality without the universe. You can go on about virtual particles all you want, but unless you can refute the key point, the argument stands.
In any case, virtual particles exist whenever two particles exchange forces. And no, if no particles were exchanging forces, no virtual particles would exist.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2010, 08:22 PM
 
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
(14-03-2010 04:41 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  
(14-03-2010 04:12 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Take the chicken breeding example. You said "all it would do is get rid of chickens with small breasts" there are defective genes in humans and animals. When you breed animals and humans for that matter, that have a trait that you like with another animal with a trait that you like you double up on there defective genes, you can eliminate that animal if the defective gene is multiplied. Some royal families have hemophilia, Tay-Sachs disease in eastern European Jews. So the question to the vet could be "knowing how defective genes duplicate in breeding, how does that knowledge effect evolution since along with the gene you like you also are multiplying the one you don't?" It's deeper than "you would get rid of chickens with small breasts"

I'm sorry Martin, but I'm slightly confused there. Are you talking about inbreeding, since you would start with only one organism with the desirable trait? Or are you talking about negative traits attached to positive ones?

I was asking myself the same thing... What are you trying to say?
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: