Wel hy is kwaai! Baie kwaai. Hy gaan sy voete stamp en sy bo-lip omkrul en woedend op en af spring en al sulke dinge om duidelike te wys hy is kwaai. En so aan.
Klink na 'n beskaafde meneertjie. Maak sy woordeskat 'n bietjie groter ;). Of is dit 'n kinderstorie?
TeleoPhroners old boy, I see you are advocating a whole new brand of belief in anything and everything, in any old shit that comes along. Omnicredence, I would call it. Might I, on behalf of Rwenzori Real Estate LLC, interest you in some stunningly cheap deals on sea-facing plots? Our new development consists of 1 hectare plots overlooking the Sea of Tranquillity.
Rwenzori Real Estate - we put the Real in Real Estate.
Fascinating bru, send me PM to negotiate the terms ::).
Nee flip, dissie 'n kinner storie nie. Ten minste R rated. Die flippen kwaai hasie gaan sy wortels soek en hy gaan allerande karnale bevlieg omdat hy so bedonnerd is. Oom Olifant, Japie die skapie, en selfs Toon die telefoon maak sy verskyning. Met cameos van Tortelduifie en Kallie meerkat.
Ongelukkig geen seks nie.
Anatomy of a Typical Conversation of a Certain Recent Kind
[tr][td]Alleged Sceptical Crackpot (ASC): I think that god is X because of Y and Z.
Confirmed Delusional God-freak (CDG): Ha ha, what a straw man. You don’t know what you’re talking about. What do you think this totally irrelevant thing has to do with this other wholly tangential issue, neither of which bears more than a very tenuous and contrived relationship to what you have said?
ASC: Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. What I meant was that [more elaborate explanation].
CDG: Ha ha, another straw man. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Don’t you realise that this completely extraneous argument is entirely beside the point?
ASC: Okay, so maybe you should carefully explain exactly what you mean.
CDG: Ha ha, what a straw man. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Here, have a bunch of evasions and some vague hand waving. That proves it.
ASC: You’ll have to do better than just evasions and hand waving. What you’re saying is nonsense because X, Y and Z.
CDG: Because you say so! Ha ha, what a straw man. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Here, let me just totally ignore your points and you can have another bunch of evasions with some more vague hand waving to go, garnished with a few bales of straw. Now go away, you troll.
ASC: Look, you keep saying that I don’t understand and so far you haven’t bothered to clear up your position so that we can be sure that we are talking about the same thing. You keep talking about straw men and how unaware of the reality I am but you offer next to nothing that is helpful in explaining the reality as you see it.
CDG: Because you say so! Ha ha, what a straw man. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Here, have a few more evasions with some more vague hand waving, garnished with more bales of straw. I’ll even throw in free of charge a really bad analogy that any reasonably astute child can see is deeply flawed. Now go away, you troll.
ASC: But you haven’t explained anything and your analogy won’t work either.
CDG: Because you say so! Ha ha, what a great big fluffy straw man. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Your understanding is totally deficient and I’m too busy making my own stuff up, shredding straw men and generally distorting the views of others. That’s because I’m miles smarter than anyone else here and they’re too daft to notice how I misrepresent philosophy and science for my own purposes.
ASC: Okay, okay, you win already.[/td][/tr]
'Luthon64
Meanwhile another sinister type of conversation seems show its ugly head.
[tr][td]Allegedly Delusional Crackpot (ADC): God is not some scientific theory or hypothesis. The only arguments for God are philosophical and/or metaphysical and/or theological. I think philosophical and metaphysical arguments for classical theism are stronger than arguments for materialism, physicalism, neutral monism, naturalism or atheism. I see no reason to associate myself with those.
Because-I-Say-So Troll (BISST): There is no scientific evidence that some bearded old sky-fairy or a fire-breathing dragon exists, therefore you are delusional.
ADC: I don’t believe in bearded old sky-fairy or a fire-breathing dragons in my garage?
BISST: They are the same thing you delusional crackpot, plus you have no scientific evidence.
ADC: They are? How so? I smell straw.
BISST: Don’t you know, delusional crackpots like you might as well believe in old sky-fairy or a fire-breathing dragons because they are the same. And you still haven’t got any evidence for any of those.
ADC: Well, if you actually read up just a little (and here is a link to get you started if you are really interested to read up for yourself) you will realise they are different.
BISST: Courtier reply! Typical crackpot ::).
ADC: Hopefully you will read a bit so you don’t have to invoke the Myers shuffle fallacy.
BISST: I don’t give a damn, all crackpots are the same, you all might as well believe in flying spaghetti monsters because they are the same as your classical theism. And you still have no evidence…
ADC: About the evidence, we both look at the same reality and come to different conclusions as a result of philosophical and/or metaphysical and/or theological arguments.
BISST: I don’t give a damn what you believe, you are a crackpot and will remain one until you become rational like me and other like-minded materialists (even though materialism is not a complete and fully-developed metaphysical position), naturalists (who think their self and free will do not exist and believe they are ultimately not responsible for their actions) or atheists (a negative position to your magic sky-daddy).
ADC: Ok then… if you say so.[/td][/tr]
Oh no, your version totally trumps mine. It manages to distort fully two positions for the price of one. How do you manage to do it so well?
'Luthon64
If BISST says so…
But you haven’t answered my question now, have you?
'Luthon64 (BISST, SC*)
[b]*[/b] BISST (Because-I-say-so-troll) & SC (skeptical crackpot). [i]Summa cum laude[/i], TIIHII (Teleological International Institute of Higher Insignificance and Irrelevance), 2010.
Pfff, that’s weak. What happened? You used to be a much funnier troll, now your just droopy :-\
Why, obviously I contracted a mild case of Teleological Syndrome. But you still haven’t answered my question now, have you?
'Luthon64 (BISST, SC*)
[b]*[/b] BISST (Because-I-say-so-troll) & SC (skeptical crackpot). [i]Summa cum laude[/i], TIIHII (Teleological International Institute of Higher Insignificance and Irrelevance), 2010.
You are clearly deluded, and here is why: (Your arguments are in bold)
- I previously stated that belief hinders scientific progress.
- I stated that scientists (and most atheists I know) will review the evidence objectively and come to a conclusion based on where the evidence leads them.
- I stated that all the arguments that I have come across for the existence of God had been proven false or the false logic it employs had been identified.
You called this a “generalization”, “rubbish” and a “lie” (This is the extent of your counter-argument)
I asked you to back this up, after which you provided me with the words “Top-Down Causation” and “Georges Lemaître” to Google. (Another pathetic attempt at a counter argument)
All I could find was an article that does more for my side of the argument than yours (if you can classify the empty words you type as an argument.)
Yes, Georges Lemaître (a priest) seems to have followed the evidence, but only to the point where it started conflicting with his personal beliefs. His statement to the Church warned them about the possible threat the Big Bang Theory holds for them. He definitely did not come to a conclusion based on where the evidence led him. The outcome was influenced by his personal belief system and seems to have halted any further progress he could have made.
You ask how this hinders scientific progress? In the same way that the Church has interfered with and hindered stem cell research for example, by classifying it as immoral and working against it. The same goes for the Big Bang Theory and Lemaître’s report. The Church controls the minds of millions of people who will follow their lead on anything, without checking it out or thinking for themselves.
- Then I ask you if Top-Down Causation is the same as Downward- or Macro-Causation as found in Panentheism
Instead of providing clarity by answering the question - a simple yes or no would suffice - you call this a straw man.
The reason I asked was because the only article I could find with “Top-Down Causation” and “Lemaître’s” is entitled Bad science, bad theology (mentioned above) and as previously stated, it does more for my argument than your feeble attempt at one.
A straw man it definitely isn’t. Please Google “Straw Man” because you clearly don’t know what it means. Here is a link for you in case your parents have blocked Google with NetNanny or your Primary School’s proxy doesn’t allow it.
Googoo gagga… does your mommy know you’re using her computha?
You seem to understand the English, but you fail to comprehend what you read.
Sentinel, you seem to be a bit confused.
You stated:
- Belief hinders scientific progress. This IS a generalization, and a bad one. You need to qualify what kind of belief. Any kind? All kinds? Just a few types of beliefs? Sorry, you need to elaborate a bit, no serious person will accept such a bad generalization.
- Scientists will review the evidence objectively and come to a conclusion based on where the evidence leads them. This is of course not true of ALL atheists or ALL theists. This statement is irrelevant to atheism or theism as both are capable of reviewing the evidence objectively.
- All the arguments that you have come across for the existence of God had been proven false or the false logic it employs had been identified. So what? What is the point of this subjective point? Is there some kind of argument there?
These are not very good arguments for atheism or against theism. I hope you don’t think they were arguments or even good arguments :o.
The example of “Top-Down Causation” as a research paradigm is how such a paradigm is perfectly compatible with the view “God’s action could be viewed as analogous to top-down, emergent causation”. Hence the interest many theologians show for this kind of research. And in many cases, it is inspired by theological views, even if they are views neither you or I might agree with. But, it does not hinder scientific progress and understanding.
As with Georges Lemaître, his discovery is perfectly compatible with the view that our universe had a beginning, which up until then was only taken on faith. It did not hinder scientific progress.
1) Belief hinders scientific progress. This IS a generalization, and a bad one. You need to qualify what kind of belief. Any kind? All kinds? Just a few types of beliefs? Sorry, you need to elaborate a bit, no serious person will accept such a bad generalization.
Pretty sure he means belief in some kind of diety(ies).
2) Scientists will review the evidence objectively and come to a conclusion based on where the evidence leads them. This is of course not true of ALL atheists or ALL theists. This statement is irrelevant to atheism or theism as both are capable of reviewing the evidence objectively.
Bullshit. No objective review of available evidence can possibly lead one to the conclusion that God exists. We’ve even asked you to spell out the logic you use, and what evidence you use, to arrive at the conclusion that God is real. You’ve given none. Even a lot of theists often stress furiously that their views are based on belief alone, and not evidence, because there isn’t any. BIASED review of the evidence on the other hand… leads to things like creationism, god, etc.
I think you need to qualify why this statement is true. At least give some sort of argument for why people might believe this to be true.
I did qualify it already: “because there isn’t any [evidence for god’s existance]”. Once again, feel free to point out evidence that contradicts my stance. As far as I can see, that’s as qualified as it gets.
That’s hardly a qualification. You and I look at the same evidence (i.e. reality) and come to different conclusions. Plenty of evidence… different conclusions.
Your statement “No objective review of available evidence can possibly lead one to the conclusion that God exists.” is obviously without qualification since it is possible to objectively review available evidence (i.e. reality) and come to the conclusion that God exists.
Explain how it is possible. I beg of you. Just go through the logic. That is what I’m trying to understand.
My hunch is, you have absolutely nothing. No way to explain how you go from evidence to god, this is why you repeatedly dodge the question. Stop claiming “it’s possible” to look at the evidence and see god, and SHOW how you look at the evidence to see god. Seriously, that line is getting really old now and you’ve given not even a hint of it’s truth, despite being asked repeatedly. Don’t even be exhaustive. One example will do: “Here’s the evidence, here’s how I interpret it differently to you, here’s god”.
To avoid more of this customary to-and-fro dodging and evasion, consider this (and notice the name). Of course, the compelling subtlety of these arguments is well beyond the reach of mere brutish scepticism… :
'Luthon64