Subject: Atheism-childish and immature viewpt
It takes maturity and experimentation to move past the childish and immature arguments of atheism. Atheist are the "living dead" for the most part. You can stay if you like, it's ok.
This person makes some very serious allegations about atheism - unfortunately, these allegations are not followed by equally serious arguments. If the arguments, critiques, and objections raised by atheist about theism and religion really were so childish and immature, then it shouldn't be very difficult at all to explain why and refute them.
For some reason, though, Starman doesn't bother to do that. He doesn't even try - not even a little bit. Instead, all he really does is insult atheists over and over again. Now, is that supposed to be representative of a position that is not "childish and immature." Is that supposed to be an example of a adult and mature way to argue?
Just because of contradictions in the bible they set out for a lifetime of debate without any experimentation into what is REALLY being conveyed. They jump on the obvious little contradictions in a book that written by unenlightened people. Does it surprise you that there are contradictions and obvious fallacies?
To be quite honest, I've never met anyone who has set out for a "lifetime of debate" simply because of "contradictions in the Bible" and without ever having indulged in some "experimentation" (by which I mean without ever having held any religious or theistic beliefs). Now, I grant that such people might indeed exist and if they do, I would disagree with them. Still, I doubt that there could be many such people and it is wrong to generalize about all atheists on the basis of these few.
It is true that many atheists started down the road to atheism because of contradictions in the Bible. Noticing these errors has led quite a few people to doubt other things they have been taught by religious leaders and, in some cases, this has led to doubting or even rejecting religion in general. It would not be correct, however, to assert that they are atheists only because of contradictions in the Bible. Although that may have been the spark that lit the fuse, in the end their atheism can be attributed to more than that.
I'm a little surprised, though, at someone attacking atheism who also says that the Bible was written by "unenlightened people." I personally wouldn't characterize the authors of the Bible as "unenlightened" - at least, no more "unenlightened" than the authors of other ancient works, like the Illiad, the Odyssey, or the Upanishads.
True, there are sections of all such works that we rightly regard as unenlightened and even barbaric, but there are other sections that can offer profound insight into life and human nature. After all, these authors were as human as the rest of us and it would be arrogant to assume that all of the insightful ideas only came about in modernity.
Grow up and move past this childish and immature way of looking at existence. Try some experimentation and less intellectualizing. How can Atheists know anything of other dimensions and spaces. It's like trying to explain to a baby that just because someone is out of sight it doesn't mean they don't exist.
The real question is, how can anyone know anything about other dimensions and spaces. It's easy to claim that they exist. It's easy to claim that one has experienced them - and Starman here doesn't hesitate from doing either. It's much more difficult, however, to offer others good reasons to believe that such claims are true - difficult, but absolutely necessary if you want others to believe you.
Unfortunately, Starman doesn't do anything of the sort. We read lots of claims about how these dimensions exist and lots of insults stating that atheists are childish for not believing these claims, but at no point do we see anything that would cause a person to rationally and reasonably adopt such beliefs.
Quit being so hung up on the senses- they are wonderful but they don't show the totality of the existence- they weren't intended to. "If I can't see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, hear it-then it doesn't exist. How superstitious can you be? To think that just because YOU can't experience it then it doesn't exist. Again, how superstitious can you be? There are many who CAN experience these other dimensions and spaces.
The accusation that atheists are superstitious is quite ironic - although not for the reason you might think. One's initial reaction might be to think that Starman is the superstitious one for believing in things like other spaces and dimensions; while not unreasonable, there is in fact something much more interesting and ironic going on.
If you notice, Starman berates atheists for only believing things that they experience through their senses. Then we hear about how we should experiment so that we can experience these other dimensions and spaces. So first we are criticized for relying only on personal experience and then we are criticized for not going out and having the experiences that Starman says are possible. What's wrong with this picture?
It's not unreasonable to say that a person shouldn't rely only on personal experience for what they believe. Fortunately, atheists don't only believe things they can hear, smell, touch, or see - so that criticism is simply misplaced. It's also not unreasonable to suggest that a person might believe something if they had the necessary experiences. After all, you can't really understand love unless you have experienced - and even then, maybe not.
The problem with Starman's argument here is that he is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand he argues, correctly, that it is a mistake to say "just because I experience it then it doesn't exist," but then the only basis he offers for someone to accept the existence of these "other dimensions and spaces" is to go out and experiment so that you have experience them. If he really believed his first and correct criticism, then why insist that we need to experience these dimensions and spaces?
Why not try an open mind and quit falling for the childish atheist arguments that are comfortable for you- run the experiment and don't think that just because the bible is fucked up that that means there isn't anything else out there. Many report of it. And they are the ONLY ones to trust. They've DONE the experiment. Because you can't TOUCH or SEE what they experience means nothing. Show a little courage and experiment. Be a little bit scientific for a change.
Like so many who try to invoke science on behalf of their cause, I suspect that Starman seriously misunderstands what the scientific process is all about. It is indeed true that experimentation is important; however, if that's all that science were then it wouldn't be able to produce all of the things that it has.
Critical for science is the ability to move beyond an experiment and allow others to replicate it. Only when others are able to reproduce the same results independently is one justified in being confident that they have found something - otherwise, they need to seriously consider that their results were an error of some sort.
So, what kind of experiment does Starman think we should "run" and is it something that can be reliably and consistently replicated, giving us the same results? I don't know. Unfortunately, Starman doesn't offer any information along those lines. We are exhorted to "experiment," but we aren't told what sorts of "experiments" we should run or what sorts of results we can expect. It's almost as if Starman doesn't take these ideas seriously either.
Note: This message originally appeared in the Agnosticism / Atheism forum. Read the whole thread. More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Once again Athiests prove me right. You see, the problem with Atheism and Athiest is that most do not wish to have a decent argument on god and reality but to insult and make themselves seem better then others and when a challenge about reality and their perspective of reality is brought up to them they go circular, insulting, belittling and making the other seem childish. Your kind never wish to actually argue about anything but to make yourself seem more intelligent.
You people make me sick! so sick! At least the Fundamentalists put some care into their idols when they do their hypocrisies while your kind wishes for nothing but self worship. you beleive there is nothing except you because your kind is sooo egocentric and god didn’t come down on a chariot to help you personaly. you create a simple picture of the universe, you bring it down to your perspective so you can bottle it and have easy answers. just because you believe in nothing but yourself does not make you a genius good man, it makes you simple.
I’ve got one question, just one!
exactly how does pretending that pretending is some thing more than pretending make you a better person?
lets see if you can answer this with out whining?
Feel free to show how anything in the above “prove” you right.
Oh, and “atheist” is not a proper noun, so it shouldn’t be capitalized.
Do you have anything worth arguing about?
Funny, but if we really don’t want to argue and have no sound arguments to offer, why would we make you sick?
That’s a pretty serious accusation. I challenge you to prove it.
Atheists believe that only they exist? That’s incoherent.
Really? Show how.
Whereas “god did it” is a hard answer?
Whereas your comments demonstrates just how deep and complex your own thinking is, right?
“You create a simple picture of the universe”, said the pot to the kettle.
Baxter (1). Simple picture of the universe? I think you have modern Cosmology confused with Biblical Cosmology.
I don’t think you have met many atheists.
Baxter (1). Your statement that atheists “create a simple picture of the universe” and that we bring it down to our perspective so we can “bottle it and have easy answers” clearly implies that you are very knowledgeable about modern cosmology (maybe you are a Cosmologist!) and the ideas that underpin it such as the origin of the elements, the General Theory of Relativity, quantum theory, and the standard model of particle physics.
Would you please compare and contrast the simple picture of the universe presented by modern cosmology with the complex Biblical picture of the universe?
Baxter (1). I am not trying to go circular, insult, belittle, or make you look childish; I am trying to give you a chance to seem more intelligent. I have tried this many times, and after preaching, the Fundamentalist always runs. Please try to break this precident!
I don’t know how many atheists Baxter might have met, but he pretty obviously has paid no attention to anything they’ve tried to tell him.
It takes maturity and experimentation to move past the childish and immature arguments of theism. Theist are the “living dead” for the most part. You can stay if you like, it’s ok.
There I corrected your spelling errors Starman(how oddof a moniker), now you won’t have your projection and error pointed out.
John Hanks (5). I agree with you. Baxter’s comments also suggest that he is not very well acquainted with many Fundamentalists, either.
Baxter (1). There are major differences between preachers and scientists. An obvious difference is the preacher exits the podium after the sermon is completed; generally the congregation exits the sanctuary. After a scientist finishes the presentation, questions and comments are welcomed.
Baxter has said that the atheists’ universe is simple. It is not considered simple by cosmologists; for it to be simple to him, he has to be incredibly erudite. I have given him a chance to prove his erudition; he has neglected to make an attempt.
Since our universe is so simple to him, I want to ask several questions, but to save space, will only ask him to comment on one aspect of our universe, for which cosmologists (other than Baxter, I assume), still do not have the answer. The validity of the general theory of relativity breaks down at the Planc time period, 10^-43 second after the Big Bang or before the Big Crunch. A quantum theory of gravity, which integrates quantum theory and general relativity, is needed to describe the universe in the interval between the Planc time and the Big Bank or Big Crunch. Baxter, do you think superstring theory is a possible candidate?
Correction. In my haste to “Say It!”, I accidentally neglected to edit my comments. I apologize to Prof. Max Planck for accidentally misspelling his name. I meant to say the Planck time. I am very sorry, Prof Planck!
Baxter (1). You accuse atheists of creating a simple picture of the universe, bringing it down to our perspective, so we can bottle it, and have easy answers.
I asked you a question, which you could answer yes or no, about a very short interval of time in our simple picture of the universe, the extremely important 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,1 second after the Big Bang and before the Big Crunch. Was the question too simple to waste your time answering? Or was it just easier to preach and run?
@Starman:
Atheists have a childish viewpoint? Science has been exploring the universe and discovering so many new things, every day. They work tirelessly to learn how things actually evolve and exist. They spend countless hours advancing their knowledge in scientific research.. This is childish?
Crediting an invisible man in the sky with all these complexities isn’t childish? “God did it” is neither an explanation or a truly adult response.
Who is more childish? The believers in a cosmic Santa, or those who can understand the differences between fiction and scientific fact? That is not being intellectual, it is just being a sensible adult. What’s so terrible about using one’s intellect anyway? Is critical thinking out of your purview?
Ooohhh! Ohhh! Cosmic santa!!! Can I be Cosmic Santa?
Baxter is gone. AtheistGeophysicistBob minced him up an made a pie.
Thanks for the comment, Ernie. I think Baxter preached and ran.
That’s a funny accusation to make about atheists, considering that when we bring up truth and facts it’s the CHRISTIANS who stand there with their fingers in their ears going, “La, la, la!!! I can’t hear you…so it isn’t true!!!” And they end up resorting to personal attacks like this one. Does anyone else ever think that maybe our truth hits them a little close to the jugular?? I hope we draw a little blood someday.
Starman is overdue for a rabies shot.
I’ve met and debated with a number of atheists over the last three years, and I agree that their reasoning is less than sound and their arguments less than mature.
1) The charicature of “God” that they build up to argue against is a “God” that Christians would not even worship. Atheists very seldom argue against anything remotely resembling the God of Christianity.
2) I seldom see an atheist argument that doesn’t contain at least one appeal to ridicule fallacy. It’s called a “fallacy” for a reason.
3) Atheists claim science is on their side. This is misinformed. Most scientists will admit science will never disprove God. Most atheists then have to resort to treating the Bible as a science book (which it is not) in order to come up with any arguments at all. AtheistBob makes my case clearly in an above comment. The Biblical authors did not invent the cosmology contained in the Bible. This is proven and documented fact. Seeing that the Bible is not a science book, it’s much rather like getting mad at the weather man for using the term “sunrise” or “sunset” because those terms imply geocentrism.
The charicature of “God” that they build up to argue against is a “God” that Christians would not even worship. Atheists very seldom argue against anything remotely resembling the God of Christianity. — Justin on August 30, 2010 at 9:12 am
Well, why be coy? Please offer your own personal definition and/or description of a god that Christians would worship, and we’ll talk about that.
And I am sure you can also support your claim that no Christians worship the god that many atheists describe? Or am I to take your word for it that your own idea of the Christian god is in some way more legitimate than, say, the Christian god that is described each Sunday morning at my local Baptist church?
By the way, I think you mean caricature:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/caricature
Ariel,
Can you spell out exactly what “truth” you are talking about? Your post, along with the others’ posts, only serve to underline some of the point starman was making, in that you make grandiose claims, but when called on the carpet, the claims and “truth” of atheism boil down to childish hatred.
You “hope” you draw blood? Was this a Freudian slip? Do you really wish religious people ill will? That goes a long way toward my theory that atheists cannot form a logically coherent moral system.
AtheistBob,
1) The Big Cruch is the projected end of the universe, not the second Planck interval. Just a polite correction there.
2) There’s a paper out (2003) that provides a proof that even though we don’t know what happened in the first Planck interval or so, that the universe still had a beginning. I think Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin co-authored the paper.
I’d also think that a real geophysicist would be more knowledgeable than a laymen like myself on such issues. Perhaps you’re not really a scientist?
Justin:
1. I will restate my comment to Baxter. The validity of the mathematics of General Relativity theory breaks down at the Planck time (~5.39124(27) X 10^-44 second, for a precise calculation, or 10^-43 second for an approximation; I hope you are sufficiently mathematically sophisticated to understand why 10^-44 is used in the 1st instance, and 10^-43 in the 2nd. If you are interested in (27), study Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle) after the BB, or at the Planck time before the BC. Please note that I did not mention a 2nd Planck interval; there is only one (1). The Planck time is an interval of ~5.39124(27) x 10^-44 second, as precisely measured as possible; we have to say ~ because of the uncertainty principle.
2. I suspect that you have not read the BGV paper, but “Contemporary Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe”, in which W. L. Craig attempts to debunk the BGV paper by picking and choosing statements that seem to support his hypotheses.
Geophysics has nothing to say about either Special or General Relativity, Particle Physics, very lttle about Physical or Theoretical Cosmology and Astronomy, etc; I have studied, and continue to study, these subjects because I am interested in them.
Geophysics is involved with a wide range of subjects, many of which are of little or no interest to me. Society of Exploration Geophysics, the international society of applied geophysics, requires 8 years of successful professional experience, which must be confirmed by 4 Active Members, to apply for membership. I am an Emeritus Member, which can only be awarded after 30 continuous years Active Membership (yearly dues are reduced by 50%!). My Member ID# is 004393, if you care to check.
Perhaps I am not really a scientist? My employer thinks that I am, and SEG thinks that I am; I say, apologetically, that no other opinion is important to me.
I had to delete much of my reply because the computer said I was restricted to 10 to 2,000 characters.
Can you provide any links or citations?
Please provide some references here. Cite the “god” which atheists argue against and show that it’s attributes aren’t accepted by any Christians.
Please cite an example of this fallacy being used and point to where anyone besides you complains about it.
That depends upon how “god” is defined. I notice you complain about how atheists define it, but you don’t offer a definition.
Tell that to the Christians who use it as one.
Right, because atheists couldn’t possibly be addressing the claims, beliefs, and ideas of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. There couldn’t possibly be any influential Christians, Christian institutions, or Christian organizations promoting any of the views which atheists argue against.
“Can you provide any links or citations?”
Sure, read Dawkins or Hitchens. Or go visit the CARM forums, atheist section, and pick a thread at random.
[quote]Please provide some references here. Cite the “god” which atheists argue against and show that it’s attributes aren’t accepted by any Christians.[/quote]
Again, read Dawkins or Hitchens or go to the CARM forms or other religious forums that allow atheist posters (most do) and see for yourself. I suspect you’re trying to kill my argument with the “work yourself to death citing sources” tactic, but I think you either need to be a bit more honest or get out a little more.
“Please cite an example of this fallacy being used and point to where anyone besides you complains about it.”
See the above referenced works and forums. I’m actually not complaining about it, just pointing out that most atheists at some point wind up using them. It helps the theists, so I don’t complain about it.
“That depends upon how “god” is defined. I notice you complain about how atheists define it, but you don’t offer a definition.”
Thanks Bill Clinton. That depends on the definition of “is”, or something along those lines?
“Tell that to the Christians who use it as one.”
I have. But still, it’s a strawman that atheist love to beat but ultimately proves nothing. Are you claiming science has disproved God? Surely not.
“Right, because atheists couldn’t possibly be addressing the claims, beliefs, and ideas of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. There couldn’t possibly be any influential Christians, Christian institutions, or Christian organizations promoting any of the views which atheists argue against.”
And, as we all know (wink wink) fundamentalist Christians are the ONLY Christians and ONLY people that believe in God, right?
That’s not a link or a citation. That’s a claim that relevant examples exist somewhere, not quite identified, but apparently I’m supposed to put in the work to find the alleged examples of what you claim exists.
Uh-uh, it doesn’t work that way. If you can’t or won’t provide the citations to support your claims, then have the matureity to admit it.
No, I’m trying to get you to support your claims and allegations. If you can’t, then admit it.
“Please cite an example of this fallacy being used and point to where anyone besides you complains about it.”
What, I’m supposed to dig through a collection of online and offline texts to find an alleged fallacy which you don’t define? No. It’s your claim to support, not mine.
No, it’s basic reasoning — Logic 101, in fact. Key terms need to be defined. Under some definitions of “God,” science can disprove it in the same way and to the same extent that science can disprove anything else.
“Tell that to the Christians who use it as one.”
Whoops, notice the contradiction? If you admit that Christians use the Bible as a science text, then it’s not a “strawman” for atheists to argue against that position. A “strawman” is when you argue against a position which people don’t really hold. Arguing against an actual position held by actual people cannot, by definition, be a “strawman.”
Depends on how “God” is defined. Under some basic understandings of the term, science absolutely has disproved it.
No one has ever claimed that, and merely arguing against one Christian position does not entail that one thinks it is the only Christian position that exists. What’s more, you misrepresent me quite seriously because you’re responding to a comment that is about more than just fundamentalists. I know you read the “conservative evangelicals” because you quoted it.
Curious how you would accuse atheists of unsound reasoning, but in this one comment you commit the following egregious errors: refuse to provide any support for any claims or allegations, insist that others spend their time find examples or support for your claims, misrepresent that “strawman” fallacy, misunderstand the vital importance of defining key terms in any argument, and pretend that atheists arguing against some Christian position entails believing that it is the only Christian position.
Indeed, I question whether you correctly reasoned on any single point anywhere in your comment. This hardly inspirers confidence in your grandiose claims about atheists and their problems. If you can’t correctly identify a “strawman” argument, for example, why should anyone believe you about alleged “appeal to ridicule” fallacies?
You have yet to make a single, substantive point or raise a single substantive objection to anything written by any atheists. You make a lot of vague accusations and claims, but are unable or unwilling to do anything that would give them anything approaching substance — you know, like with real examples and serious explorations of what’s wrong with what people are saying. What, do you simply expect everything and anything you say to be accepted on faith?
You don’t even manage to write anything which relates directly to anything in the article — not exactly a difficult standard to meet.
Frankly, I think it has to be questioned whether you have any knowledge whatsoever about atheism or any debates involving atheism.
So, you refuse to accept Dawkins or Hitchens as references. If you haven’t read The God Delusion or God Is Not Great, you should run out and pick them up.
Not all sources are on the internet. Further, I did give you an internet source – namely the carm forums.
I suppose you’re not willing to be that intellectually honest after all.
What references? You simply said to go look there – that’s not a reference. A reference entails a specific citation of specific passages. Or at least page numbers.
To provide substantive, serious support for your allegations, you should be able to offer direct quotations of relevant people plus, if asked, an explantion for how and why you think it supports what you are saying.
I didn’t say they were. I didn’t even imply it. On the contrary, I directly mentioned “offline texts.” Now, how can you read a mention of “offline texts” and suspect that I think all sources are on the internet? You can’t, not reasonably.
I know you did, and I responded to that. Didn’t you notice?
So, your position is that “intellectual honesty” requires doing others’ work for them? I’m somehow not being “intellectually honest” when I challenge you to support what you’re saying — substantively, with direct citations and references. You, in contrast, are somehow being “intellectual honesty” when you make vague claims and accusations then wave off challenges to support them with “oh, you go do it.”
How does that work, exactly? Do you sincerely acknowledge now intellectual or ethical obligation to support anything you ever say? Do you sincerely expect others to accept on faith anything you say, regardless of what it is?
Sorry, that’s not how adults behave. If you can’t or won’t support your claims and allegations, then you simply have no business posting here. You have nothing to offer and can’t have any intention of engaging in anything like a serious conversation.
No, intellectual honesty just requires that ignorance be actual, not feigned.
And I am completely ignorant of whatever it is you think supports your claims. I have no idea what pages on the CARM forums you think support your allegations. I have no idea what passages in which books you think support your allegations. I can’t read your mind. Frankly, I wouldn’t want to.
What’s more, I’m not going to invest any time or effort into sifting through those resources to try and figure out what you had in mind. I’m not going to try to figure out which arguments by Dawkins or Hitchens you think is “less than sound” or “less than mature.” It’s your job to cite which arguments you consider unsound or immature and to be prepared to explain why.
If you cannot or will not, then it is you who is failing to uphold even minimal standards of intellectual honesty — or even ethical honesty for that matter. If you cannot or will not support your allegations, then you had no business making them. Don’t bother coming back unless and until you can behave like an adult.
So, let me get this straight, Austin:
You run a blog on atheism.
You are incapable of discussing two books by arguably two of the leading champions of atheism, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Presumably, you need citations because you haven’t read the books. Simple acknowledgment of this fact would suffice.
And you further admit in your latest post that you’re really closed-minded anyway. Brilliant. You make Dawkins case just that much more flimsy.
But perhaps you have read them and are being dishonest. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I’ll paraphrase and cite a few examples.
The Bible is from Satan – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 6
Religious people are closed-minded. – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 6
Religious people are stupid. – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 6
Then there is Dawkins comparison of Christianity to the Church of The Flying Spagetti Monster. While this is rather humorous (yes, Christians have a sense of humor), it doesn’t address any of the evidence that religious people have for the existence of God (mostly in the form of philosophical arguments). Ultimately, Dawkins goes on to use all manner of logical fallacies in his book, including self-contradictory statements, wishful thinking, begging the question, appeal to emotion, etc. For someone whose stated goal was to convert religious people to atheism, his condescending tone, his avoidance of the classical arguments for God’s existence, and his fallacy-riddled book ultimately make the book one gigantic appeal to ridicule fallacy. In Dawkins’ defense, being an expert in the field of biology does not make one a good philosopher, and Dawkins DOES succeed in proving this quite well.
And I have plenty of business making the allegations. I read their books, lol. Why? Because I’m not closed minded.
That’s the only thing you manage to get “straight.”
I am quite capable of discussing them. There is no reasonable way for you to arrive at the conclusion “he won’t discuss them” from my statement that I won’t go through them to find what you think supports your claims. Your accusation against me is thus just as baseless as all the other accusations you have made thus far — a disturbing pattern, to say the least.
No, I need citations because only you can cite the passages that lead you to your conclusion. This is logic 101 here again; what’s more, this is something I’ve already informed you of. To attribute some other motive without any evidence whatsoever is disingenuous at best.
I’d love for you to quote me where I “admit” this, but I’m confident you won’t. Instead I think you’ll “paraphrase” me with words that I haven’t used and thus attribute to me ideas that are the opposite of anything I’ve said.
Why only “paraphrase” — is it because you know that direct quotes would contradict your claims?
Fortunately, I have Dawkins’ book in front of me to check your claims.
The words “a work of Satan.” appear on page 6, but they are part of his statement that some people might refrain from reading his book after being told that it — Dawkins’ book — is “a work of Satan.” That’s not a reference to the Bible.
This alone is more than enough to conclude that you either haven’t read the text or simply can’t be honest about what it says, but let’s look at the rest of your “paraphrases” to see if this is merely a fluke or part of a consistent pattern.
In fact, he says exactly the opposite: “I believe there are plenty of open-minded people out there…” In this statement, the “people” he’s referring to are religious theists. So clearly Dawkins thinks some religious people are closed-minded and some are open-minded.
Once again, his actual words are effectively the opposite: “…whose native intelligence is strong enough to overcome it [indoctrination].” He’s writing here about the same “people” as in the previous passage.
So why didn’t you offer direct quotes? Either you haven’t read the text and so don’t have direct quotes or you have read the text but realize that direct quotes of his actual words wouldn’t support your allegations.
Does he present the comparison as an attempt to address any of that “evidence”? If not, then that’s not a flaw in the comparison. You need to look at what the comparison is designed to communicate and evaluate it on that basis — first whether it’s something worth communicating or addressing at all and second whether it does so in an effective manner. Complaining that it doesn’t address something else that it wasn’t intended to address would be a fallacy.
Name one. If you’ve read it and there are so many, it should be easy to find one.
Not if you can’t or won’t support them. You were challenged numerous times to support them even though you should have had the decency to do so without prodding. Once you tried, though, your “evidence” proved to be 100% false. You avoided providing any direct quotes and your “paraphrases” were not accurate. Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that your edition differs from mine and thus you are working from different pages, the fact remains that the statements on my page 6 directly contradict what you claim to have read on your page 6.
And you consider this an “intellectually honest” presentation of your position? You say that intellectual honesty requires that one’s ignorance be genuine, not feigned. Is your ignorance of Dawkins’ actual words and positions genuine or feigned? If genuine, that’s inconsistent with your claim that you’ve read the book and that you have a sound basis for your accusations. If feigned, you’re intellectually dishonest according to your own standards.
When I found out that God ‘apparently’ DID exist, what, The
Creature Itself(!) gave me, was only some bad experience that noone obliged me that I could explain, even to myself, who thus turned to find out, What The Buddhism was, i.e. A Philosophy to show me that apart from choosing my own life
as a righteous event it was also a part of mine as a human
being to be able to make an unwanted mistake, one that God still proves to me that It though indirectly approves of, that is, Its Thinking IS after all different from mine, deliberately that I mention it to you, so I can find out & so on, greetings, ‘J.A.,’ any labor suggestions, please?
suggestions, please? — Joram Arentved on August 31, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Seek the services of a qualified mental health professional.
It takes maturity and experimentation to move past the childish and immature arguments of atheism. –Starman
Calling atheists “childish” and “immature” must be the new talking points being passed down to the faithful by the Christian apologists. I have seen and heard those words a lot lately.
This represents a victory on our part. It shows they know they can’t use the words “wrong” or “incorrect,” so they have to fall back onto subjective perjoratives that are less easily disproven.
Apologies for being trite, but i feel Justin was “totally pwned” by Austins last post.
It is yet another occasion where a posters nonsense catches up with them and there is nowhere left to go other than admitting defeat. But they never do that, so will Justin ever return?
Justin. Your commment to AtheistBob. August 30, 10:46.
Thanks for correcting my mistakes; in addition to misinterpreting my statement to Baxter, I was unable to find a completely accurate statement except that a paper was published in 2003, which you think was by Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin. EXAMPLE: you mentioned the second Planck interval (published 2001; updated 2003). There is no Planck interval, only an interval between the Planck time (5.39124(27) X 10^-44 second, or 10^-43 second, if you want to calculate approximately) and the BB, and the same interval between the Planck time and the BC. [Since I am assuming that you are mathematically sophisticated, I will refrain from explaining 10^-44 in the first instance, and 10^-43 in the second. And (27) is the correction for Heisenberg uncertainty, in case you don't know.] Your comment seems to be from W. L. Craigs “Contemporary Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe”, where he attempts to debunk the BGV paper by picking and choosing statements, rather than from the BGV paper.
You are completely in error about Geophysics; it has nothing to say about Special or General Relativity, Particle Physics, vsry little about Physical or Theoretical Cosmology, etc. Those subjects just happen to be interests of mine.
Society of Exploration Geophysics, the international society of applied geophysics, requires 8 years successful professional experience, which must be confirmed by 4 Active Members, in order to apply for Active Membership. I was an Active Member continuously for 30 years, which made me eligable for Emeritus Membership (dues reduced by 50%!). If you care to check, I am Member ID # 004393.
Geophysics includes practical and theoretical specialties, many of which I both know little to nothing, and in which I have no interest. My specialty is Exploration Geophysics.
Am I a Geophysicist? My employer and SEG think that I am; to my wife and friends, I am just plain Bob, which I prefer
I apologize for the 2 comments to Julian. I wrote the 2nd first. After more than a day it wasn’t printed, so I wrete the 1st.
Hope I get a response from Julian, but would be very surprised if I did. I suspect he preached and ran.
It is yet another occasion where a posters nonsense catches up with them and there is nowhere left to go other than admitting defeat. But they never do that, so will Justin ever return? — dreadfulscathe on September 6, 2010 at 5:23 am
Clive and Josh and Lee and all the rest make it seem so easy to vanquish the frothing atheists… which works OK, until their readers encounter an actual atheist, who generally does not comply with the anticipated script.
Christians such as Justin are intially so very eager to beard the lion in its den. Too late to save face, they realize that their apologists have sent them into battle armed only with blanks. Their shallowness has been exposed and they have no recourse but vague muttering as they slink toward the exit.