The God Delusion

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I responded to your post right after a nap. I've been listening to Queen for the past hour. I'm in a perfectly fit state of mind. You're just being a prick, and counterproductive. How many times have you posted on this thread, in response to me calling you out on your BS? 4. How long has this lasted? About an hour and fifteen minutes. How long would it have taken you to post the questions? I don't know, maybe 5 minutes? But no, you chose to cling to your injured ego like a sick puppy to a colorful towel.

It hasn't anything to do with me. I'm concerned about you.

You remind me of myself when I was your age. I know, at this point, you aren't capable of thinking what I've been telling you through. But as long as you remember what I'm telling you, you'll eventually understand what I said and it'll be a very happy moment. I just wish there was some way I could help you get there.. anything I say you'll respond with bitter anger, just like I would before I realized how ridiculous I must have sounded. Other members have tried to let you know too.. they've gone to greats extents in trying to let you know that the way you act isn't impressive.. but you responded in the same way. I can't expect you to grow up just yet, but I do hope you remember what I'm telling you.. it'll make sense eventually.

[Kamehameha34]

Butter sticks on tuesdays sincerely ski the ranchy waffle iron in august.

You'll make sense of that once you realize that the "you'll understand it when you're X" ploy is just a last-ditch defense mechanism.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Butter sticks on tuesdays sincerely ski the ranchy waffle iron in august. You'll make sense of that once you realize that the "you'll understand it when you're X" ploy is just a last-ditch defense mechanism.

The difference is.. what I said makes sense, and you know it. I'm going to stick with your screaming until you let go and realize you really aren't accomplishing anything by acting the way you do.

[Kamehameha34]

I guess you don't like it when people point out flaws in your posting. Someone who does it isn't mentally deficient.

This "you'll agree with me when you're more mature and BETTER!" ploy is ridiculous. Of course I'm not "accomplishing anything" now - you're being a stubborn ass.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I guess you don't like it when people point out flaws in your posting. Someone who does it isn't mentally deficient. This "you'll agree with me when you're more mature and BETTER!" ploy is ridiculous. Of course I'm not "accomplishing anything" now - you're being a stubborn ass.

No dear.. I don't mind at all. Though I disagree with you bitching at everything you see.

I'm being stubborn? I'm not going to let another one of your tantrums go unaddressed. This will be good for you, trust me. I feel your under the impression you can bitch and whine and throw threads off-topic and everyone will let it slide. Not this time, buddy. :[ Either one of us is going to be banned or your going to have to be a big boy and learn that your tantrums are not appreciated. Your call.

[Kamehameha34]

I'm not bitching. At least, I wasn't. I was correcting you for being hypocritical.

You can continue this pissing contest, if you want. I'll just watch and wonder why you're taking a piss while you should be providing the questions to tman, which you criticized of him for not answering.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'm not bitching. At least, I wasn't. I was correcting you for being hypocritical. You can continue this pissing contest, if you want. I'll just watch and wonder why you're taking a piss while you should be providing the questions to tman, which you criticized of him for not answering.

I'm still here Kame. Scream and scream and cry and cry. This is good for you.

And like I said, dear, I provided the same the question to tman 5 times and he never once addressed them.. only to occasionally say "what?" Now, I don't know why you have a hard time understanding that.. or maybe you really were trying to start a fight for your venting afterall! :O -gasp-

[Kamehameha34]

I'm still here Kame.

And you wouldn't have to feel so compelled to stay and protect your ego if you'd just provided the questions in the first place- a good two hours ago.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 And you wouldn't have to feel so compelled to stay and protect your ego if you'd just provided the questions in the first place- a good two hours ago.

aw, you didn't hear me again. :] This is about you and your tantrums. I'm not the only one that's sick of you picking fights and whining constantly. I'm going to stay here until you let go. It's going to be really good for you! Honest it will. (though I have to say your creativity with each excuse to keep up the fight is really cute)

The only thing the questions would benefit would be you and your pissy-fit. Tman can look back in the thread like any member would.. it was only posted like 5 times in posts not that far back. The thing is.. I'm not sure I want to give the bottle to the baby. I think it's doing a lot of good to wave this bottle just above your reach.

[Kamehameha34]

I think there's a disorder entailing trying to pick flaws in those who criticize you.

I guess that's easier than dealing with them, right?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I think there's a disorder entailing trying to pick flaws in those who criticize you. I guess that's easier than dealing with them, right?

mhm :] mhm

Yet another charmingly creative add-on. I'm still here for ya buddy. I have all the time in the world.. just for you. -raises the baby bottle higher-

[Kamehameha34]

You're no longer worth my time. You weren't even before this - when the drivel you were posting was just as absurd. I've seen a lot of trolls, but you're the only one that actually uses "I've already SAID my argument!" as a defense against someone else's.

I'm sure you'll convince yourself that your residence in my ignore list is borne out of my "tantrum". That, or that I've made some sort of "breakthrough" by censoring your immature drivel from my thoughts.

I'll leave you to pick up the broken pieces of your ego. Compensate, excuse, and scapegoat at will.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You're no longer worth my time. You weren't even before this - when the drivel you were posting was just as absurd. I've seen a lot of trolls, but you're the only one that actually uses "I've already SAID my argument!" as a defense against someone else's. I'm sure you'll convince yourself that your residence in my ignore list is borne out of my "tantrum". That, or that I've made some sort of "breakthrough" by censoring your immature drivel from my thoughts. I'll leave you to pick up the broken pieces of your ego. Compensate, excuse, and scapegoat at will.

I thought there was no end to you! I'm glad to hear you've let go. I didn't mean to be hard on you, but you really gotta learn. Enough's enough. I hope you can learn to do it quicker in the future, and not pick so many fights! Regardles, it's a shame.. someone confronts your petty little temper tantrums and you end up ignoring them.

[Jack]

Take it elsewhere. Get back on topic.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[loser]

False. 2*0 = 1*0 because 0 is equal to 0. Using your logic, I could put any 2 numbers I wanted in for X and Y in the equation X*0 = Y*0 and it would be true because 0 = 0. You can't divide zero out.

Bravo. This fallacy proof is quite old (though I did stump a high-school math teacher with it years ago) and fairly easy for any college math student to detect. Of course, many people now know of this classic 'proof'.

My purpose was not to deceive anyone but to give an example of how apparent 'proofs' may NOT be proofs at all.

My 6th grader noticed when plugging in the #'s that in line 6, when you plug in the #'s, equation winds up being false (don't know if that's where the error started or not) ... My kid says to me "2(1squared - 1x1) doesn't equal 1(1squared - 1x1) ... so I don't know if the guy forgot to carry a # somewhere or divided by zero, or something, but I would get it wrong in math if I wrote that equation." lol

I bet that you are really proud of your kid, n'est pa?

The scientific method asks that those who make a claim that anything exists or is true must accept the burden to provide proof or at least testable evidence of that claim.

This is arbitrarily assigned, then, because many claims are unprovable and their 'evidence' untestable. Infinity (or the infinite/finite universe) is just as untestable as God. Furthermore, even the age of the earth (much more the universe) is unprovable and untestable. You may disagree with this assertion, considering all of the projected proposals of the earth's age that are proffered by scientists as 'undisputed' fact. However, this is only supposition that is NOT testable. In order to obtain such data (such as used in radio-dating methods) a lot of assumptions have to be made. If the assumptions are incorrect, so is the data. Tests are rather pointless if the conclusions are wrong.

When scientists talk about "dark matter" and "black holes" and a "straight" or "curved" universe they are only theorizing. They apply what little 'knowledge' we have of physics and try to extend those principles (axioms) to these unknown phenomena. They do actually sound like they know what they are talking about but they don't...don't be fooled by their rhetoric.

There are things we do know and what we do know negates the possibility of god.

What could you (you but not your legion) possibly know that negates an unknown (to you but not your legion)? Surely this knowledge would eliminate all such talk of God, wouldn't it? Reveal your wisdom...enlighten us, please.

To most atheists, saying a supernatural, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, omnipresent, superman beyond our understanding that wants us to kill in his name is even more absurd than aliens.. and yes, it DOES need explanation.

Well, I'll explain it for you. First, there's nothing absurd about aliens. Women are absurd; aliens are not. Second, your assumptions are incorrect. The supernatural being that wants you to kill in his name is NOT God and he is NOT all that loving. In fact, he is God's enemy and, in fact, he is the god of this earth that you DO serve when you don't accept the TRUE God. Of course, by definition, God is an alien.

It's OK not to know everything.

I don't know...I like being a know-it-all.

Wait, I didn't really mean "I don't know..."...I DO know...
...cause I know it all.

You aren't solving any problems by introducing magical beings into your gaps of knowledge.

No, but you can solve a lot of your problems by invoking unseen 'supernatural' forces that are at your disposal. Calling on God works a lot better (empirically so for many people) than calling on Santa or Darwin or even Dawkins.

But I'll be reading your post again and I have a feeling I won't agree with you.

And how do you EXPLAIN this feeling? From whence did it come? And is it really real?

Induction and deduction are great tools.

Ah, yes, the tools for fools.

A wrench does nothing without a bolt to apply torque to.

I guess that you have never had one applied to your head, then.

Like logic, things are not always used for their intended purpose.

Science succeeds on its ability to predict and falsify the nature of existence.

This is where science dismally fails...its inability to predict (though it's good at falsifying), no, its inability to explain the nature of existence.

the worldviews that base their foundation on inductive falsification

Explain how this 'superior' foundation of "inductive falsification" works. I keep hearing all about this 'falsification'...it sounds like 'lies' to me.

Dawkins and other scientists of like mind, investigate and explore the world using scientific methods...

Yeah, I think that he uses it even when he goes to the crapper...exploring minds want to know (where everything comes from).

God, if people just realized how ridiculous they sometimes sound...

To be perfectly honest (almost perfect?), Anna Nicole Smith thought about life and religion more than Dawkins ever thought to think...and STILL thinks about life and religion more than Dawkins ever thinks to think...and she's DEAD!

If your going to present a meaningful coherent rational argument you have to deal with that worldview head on, and not some illusionary demands for a negative proof for the existence of God or Gods.

"...some illusionary demands for a negative proof for the existence..."

Isn't that EXACTLY what "FALSIFICATION" is all about?

2) Design is never a satisfactory explanation in the long term because eventually the designer requires a designer.

So? I can look at the Statue of Liberty or at Mount Rushmore and know that it was designed even though I don't know who the designer was. As mankind fills our world up with increasingly complex designs, the evidence that everything in life was designed builds up. Design by accident is much less plausible than design by design. If you think otherwise, you need to pull your head up out of that dark place...you can't see very well.

We know at the beginning of the universe the only things that existed were very simple unsophisticated things (such as protons, electrons and similarly small things)...

Are you still in Junior High school, Z? Elementary school? The things that you keep saying suggest a VERY young person...someone who might have just discovered that Santa isn't real.

Simple? Unsophisticated? We know (at the beginning of the universe)?

Good grief...how could ANYONE take ANYTHING you say as serious? Never have I heard a PARROT speak as if he had any original thoughts! Never have I witnessed such grand delusion!

Did someone say, "SPEECHLESS"?

Unlike theism, science is meant to have disagreement.

No, EXACTLY the SAME!

Aliens are not analogous to god. If we find an alien machine we have precedent for how life forms on planets and how living things make machines. So, we have an explanation albeit not all the details of it. God enjoys no such explanation. We have no precedent for god coming into existence what so ever.

Every precedent you implied equally applies to God. God is an alien and is no harder to explain than life, the world, and the universe itself.

You really feel threatened by God, don't you?

... in much the same way that skies filled only with birds & bugs doesn't (no planes) doesn't offer an explanation for a Boeing 747.

Well of course they do!

We know that human intelligence is a highly complex thing that requires a planet like ours and millions of years of evolution.

We know NOTHING of the sort! You forget the obvious...that man was CREATED in the likeness of his CREATOR! Whether that is simple or complex is a matter for debate. "Millions of years of evolution" has been proven false. Try another theory.

You must provide that or concede the debate.

Z, it's you that must concede. You lost the debate from Page ONE! It's a shame that "Rules of Debate" have little regard for reason, logic, and intelligence. To spout off about "strawmen" and "red herrings" and such and then not have a clue as to what you are talking about is just about asinine as I have ever seen.

If ever there was proof for God's existence it's you! If you said that you believed in God, I would start doubting His existence. Since you say that God doesn't exist, I KNOW that He does!

You have been MIGHTILY defeated in this debate. Are you the only one that doesn't see this? Ask around...I'm not too sure that even your fellow atheists will back you on this one.

No need for anyone to reply to anything I posted. This debate is pretty much exhausted for me...look for me elsewhere.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer If you didn't read them the first 5 times, why should I keep trying?

I answered all relevant questions in your previous posts.

[shunyadragon]

[quote=loser;358025]

This is arbitrarily assigned, then, because many claims are unprovable and their 'evidence' untestable. Infinity (or the infinite/finite universe) is just as untestable as God.

Your ignorance of the physics and math is apalling. It is true there are many things about the universe and cosmology that are unknown and uncertain, but our knowledge of cosmology is growing through successful predictive models of the nature of existence.

It is true the existence of God is untestable.

Furthermore, even the age of the earth (much more the universe) is unprovable and untestable. You may disagree with this assertion, considering all of the projected proposals of the earth's age that are proffered by scientists as 'undisputed' fact. However, this is only supposition that is NOT testable. In order to obtain such data (such as used in radio-dating methods) a lot of assumptions have to be made. If the assumptions are incorrect, so is the data. Tests are rather pointless if the conclusions are wrong.

Your view of science and the objective scientific methods are confusing and erroneous.

Example: Isotope dating of the stratigraphy is highly accurate and widely tested when compared the actual rock strata. There are many places on the earth with complete strata of most of the earth's history. These deposits occur in what are called geosynclines, and some unique regions have relatively complete stratigraphic sequences.

Another important example of using stratigraphy to varify isotope dating is where a great deal of strata of continuous annual layers of deposition tens of thousands of years old, some of these deposits are still taking place today in lakes, so we can compare the current annual deposition with those made ten thousand years ago, and then compare then date these layers with isotope methods. Actually, it is possible today to come close to the age of the earth from the point where continents began to form, simply from stratigraphy without isotope dating methods in these geosynclines. What is missing from this stratigraphy is the early highly violent volcanic period when the collision caused the formation of the moon.

When scientists talk about "dark matter" and "black holes" and a "straight" or "curved" universe they are only theorizing. They apply what little 'knowledge' we have of physics and try to extend those principles (axioms) to these unknown phenomena. They do actually sound like they know what they are talking about but they don't...don't be fooled by their rhetoric.

Here again, your rhetoric fails to reflect the nature of the current and advancing body of knowledge concerning math, physics and cosmology. There are many predictive models that are clearly more successful than just theorizing. Again there are many fronteers of the limits of our knowledge that we do not know, but there is a definite growing body of factual knowledge that fits our predictive models being verified by increasingly accurate and sophisticated telescopes.

It would help if you actually became more knowledgable about physics and cosmology so that your arguments would be more coherent and rational.

Enough for now.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Destroyer In this thread, I've NEVER claimed I would evidence the existence of God.

I know. I challenged you to do so. Clearly, you've failed and in doing so have conceded the debate.

We need an explanation for god and you have now admitted you are incapable or unwilling to give one.

There's really no reason to reply to any other part of your argument as nothing you can say or do can reconcile this tremendous shortcoming in your argument.

Congratulations, Nan. You've admitted your god is just another skyhook.

/thread over

[Destroyer]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Zhavric, You are being rather evasive. You are not showing any kind of evidence to support your statements.

QFT.

Zhavric, you've clearly lost the debate. It was NEVER over the existence of God and your inability to even ADDRESS this post speaks volumes:

The God Delusion

I pointed out numerous flaws in your argument - I pointed out how your "we don't know where God came from so he can't exist" "argument" is completely invalid. This debate was never over the existence of God so I have absolutely no burden to prove he exists in this thread and you know it.

See previous example I gave

Imagine someone arguing against the existence of God, their argument is: "God doesn't exist because evolution is true", then me replying, "that's not a good argument and here's why..." ...then that person saying, "well you have to prove God"....no I don't, I'm just pointing out that your argument against His existence is invalid.

That's why you've continually dodged my numerous challenges and questions to you and are trying to pretend this debate is about something it's not. ZNFYRH, you were right, this was a waste of time, I'll answer your questions tomorrow, there's no use beating this dead horse anymore.

Tell you what Zhav, the next time your debating a YEC about how evolution is true, how 'bout I pop into the debate, challenge you to prove God DOES NOT exist and then when you tell me that's off topic and that you're not trying to prove God doesn't exist in that thread, I'll pretend as if I won the debate? Sound good?

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Zhavric I know. I challenged you to do so. Clearly, you've failed and in doing so have conceded the debate.

I'm confused about the post from which I obtained that quote.

You made a statement, and when someone argues with you, you say they've conceded because they can't prove the opposite of your statement? From where I'm sitting, when challenged to support your opinion you showed that someone couldn't prove the opposite?

Normally I don't use such strong language, but that's cowardly and contemptible. I think you are lucky that integrity of conduct is not a rule on this forum. Just from reading the past year of threads, before you were banned for a period of time you did the same thing. Then you did it on your return and a member who aggressively pointed this out was banned.

It would appear that instead of actually debating with honesty, you point out the flaws in others as proof of your own superiority and then goad them into insulting. Where I come from, when a kid punches the bully, they don't punish the kid. I only hope this does not reflect the way you conduct yourself offline.

Destroyer,

I look forward to your responses and urge you to, like myself, not respond to the pending provocation that I'm sure is incoming from Zhavric's direction.