I liked this debate a lot. Greg Bahnsen demolished Dr. Stein. But I don't think Stein was the best proponent of atheism out there. I think if Michael Martin did go through with debating Bahnsen, THAT would have been "The Great Debate".
any "presupper" of any Abrahamic religion needs to go to
bahnsenburner.blogspot.com
and prepare to have your argument incinerated. please post on dawson's blog so he can talk some sense into you and keep you from walking around in confused circles of fallacies for the rest of your life. lol
@JanJiska yep, that is also just an assertion but seems to me that Bahnsen defended that assertion pretty well and Stein was the one who was left with no answer whatsoever. Be honest.
@derocdero : Absolutely, Stein was hammered in this. However I do not think that Bahnsen was that good, merely Stein was terrible.
The laws of logic support an atheist world view rather than a theistic one, IMHO. Stein should have explained that we do not know they are eternally consistant. We only know that they are to the best of our understanding.
If they are caused by a deity Bahnsen did not explain why it should be his rather than a different one, Stein should have pressed that.
@JanJiska This is exactly why debates suck as a proper forum for this sort of thing; too much depends on A: how quickly and/or glibly person is able to respond (which is different from having a good point), B: how easy it is to rattle the opponent (who may merely be nervous or intimidated). This is why I pity/respect and theist who goes up against Hitchens. Bahnsen was hands-down a better debater than Stein... but his actual arguments, upon reflection, are ridiculous.
@sincristo How are his arguments ridiculous, especially considering you mentioned the fatuous Hitchins who flounders when going up against D'Souza and resorts to drawing burlesque caricatures of Christianity as offerings of arguments.
@yedrow Well, that's precisely my point. Hitchens is a formidable speaker; in a debate, his arguments mean very little compared to his quick vocabulary and his delivery. Same for Bahnsen.
Not that I mind Hitch's debatorial prowess, mind you... it's quite fun to watch, although admittedly the whole concept of Christianity does lend itself rather readily to caricature.
@sincristo The lending of a things self to caricature tends, in my judgment, tends to be not so much an aspect of the thing as it is the mind of the viewer of that caricature, specifically in the case of traditional cultures. Atheism is just as readily rendered absurd, the only difference is a lack of 'artists' to make such renderings.
In any event, I was interested specifically in the points Bahnsen made that were ridiculous. For instance, Hitchens absurdly denounces the value of sacrifice.
@yedrow Re: caricature: take a gander at Pope Benedict's favorite hat sometime. Atheists have nothin' on that guy, nor will they anytime soon.
Regarding Hitchens/sacrifice: Hitch denounces sacrifice when A) it is done by one person, in advance, for the perceived "sins" of another and B) it is used to blackmail the unwilling "beneficiary" into subverting reason and prostrating himself in eternal subservience as payment for a "favor" which was never requested. On pain of eternal torture, yet.
@sincristo Hitchens denounces sacrifice because it is convenient to his argument and he can use his rhetorical wit to make it appear absurd. The point is the point you made in that the measure is the wit, not the subject at hand.
Sacrifice is a personal aspect of discipline. Undisciplined people likely cannot understand it at all since life is an accretive process and the unexperienced cannot know. A hedonist commenting on sacrifice is like a butcher commenting on watch making.
I think that the arguments which Banhsen offered which were absurd are that the laws of logic prove the existance of the Christian God as they could not exist otherwise.
@JanJiska I didn't get that out of it. As I understood it, the statement was that the laws of logic have no more credible existence than the Christian God. Meaning, there are things which exist without possessing provable criteria. Thence, the fact that the universe has laws that are perceivable but insubstantial is demonstrable of a lawful God. I seriously doubt Bahnsen said the laws of logic prove the existence of God, but feel free to point me to the clip if I'm wrong.
@JanJiska Don't you think though that Stein's aggressiveness and unwillingness to act withing the constraints of the rules of the debate condemned him more than anything?
No, you can't prove Russell's Teapot. A teapot doesn't mirror the reasoning of humanity. Therein the bulk of your problem lies: As we define the universe we find we are missing something. The theist has a thing, the Atheist has nothing and refuses to go further.
The Christian answer isn't perfect, it is just better.
@yedrow "Don't you think though that Stein's aggressiveness and unwillingness to act withing the constraints of the rules of the debate condemned him more than anything"
No, I did not notice any of that. I just thought he was completely out of his depth.
"A teapot doesn't mirror the reasoning of humanity"
Russell's does.
"As we define the universe we find we are missing something"
@JanJiska You must not have been paying good attention, Stein refused to abide by the rules of the debate and was rude at points.
Russell's teapot is an absurdity. The problem with it lie not in the fact that it is unseen, but that it is a teapot and not a chunk of stone. A teapot is 'made' and Russell required a made object for his example. To be more clear, even Russell required a creator of some sort for his analogy to make sense. cont...
@JanJiska He attempted to change the topic of the debate for one.
"Not this one, it has always existed."
I'm pretty sure you don't understand your problem. Allow me:
There is a door. On one side of the door is that of which you are aware. On the other other side is that of which you aren't aware. The fact of the door demonstrates the presence of that which is on the other side and it isn't nothing, or the unknowable, or even the unknown. It is simply the unrevealed.
@JanJiska Bahnsen called him on it, it is a very obvious part of the debate. His rudeness is also obvious. Tell me, why should I again watch the debate when you refuse to?
"Bahnsen called him on it, it is a very obvious part of the debate"
When?
"Tell me, why should I again watch the debate when you refuse to"
Because you are claiming events which happen in the debate and I am not. When pressed I conceeded my point and debunked your argument rather than what was on the debate.
You claim that Stein was rude and changed the subject - state when or retract your claim.
@JanJiska At 5:15 on tape Stein begins an inappropriate line of questioning. He commits cheats like this in other places. You find them. As well, he is rude in places, lets just consider cheating to be rude and be done with it.
This reminds me of, I think it was Al Gore, in a prez debate. He brought material when it was agreed no material would be used. This kind of cheating happens in debates. You're free of course to not view this as a cheat, considering it is in your best interests to not.
@yedrow, "At 5:15 on tape Stein begins.." Bahnsen is talking at that point. "He commits cheats like this in other places. You find them." No. You make the claim - you provide the proof. "he is rude in places" Where? "lets just consider cheating to be rude." Would you consider making claims and then asking me to provide the evidence that you cannot provie to be cheating? "This reminds me of, I think it was Al Gore, in a prez debate ..." Not really sure why this is relevant.
I didn't express that well. Stein cheated by trying to introduce a line of argument that wasn't agreed upon in the terms of the debate. He did this in other places. If you don't consider that cheating then we are at a dead end since Stein is on your side and I can't know if you: a) Don't understand, b) Are right and I'm wrong, c) Protecting your interests. Frankly, he's obviously cheating.
@JanJiska Actually, Bahnsen pointed out the cheat. The cheat didn't cease to be a cheat because he pointed it out. I assure you, it remains a cheat to this day.
Stein attempted to use as evidence parameters that weren't agreed upon in the initial negotiations. In a sense he was, like you, moving the goalpost.
Why would I watch this again to find that point when you aren't accepting this point?
"I illustrated and elaborated upon the point, address the point illustrated please"
What? Again? You are yet to provide these examples of Stein being rude and cheating. Your other points have been addressed as you raised them. What do you feel is left over?
@JanJiska In any event, I'm concerned that we are in the early stages of a 'moving the goalpost' game that is using the 'burden of proof' fallacy as a stalking horse.
@JanJiska What you are doing with the teapot is putting it on the side of the door that most conveniences your beliefs. You see, the teapot is known, it is on the aware side of the door. It cannot be made to be otherwise. God is only known though the presence of the door on the aware side, but is otherwise on the unrevealed side. In other words, you cannot make an analog of an unrevealed thing.
The solution to Russel's Teapot is that he should have simply asserted that God didn't exist.
@JanJiska No, I'm not missing the point of Russell's Teapot, I'm rendering it moot. I perfectly understand the point of, I just understand much more than the point of it. A creation cannot be equated to the creator. It is a logical fallacy to presume the nonexistence of the creator in order to resolve the problem.
@JanJiska "Certainly, I shall name it "the unnameable". Was there a point you were trying to make there?"
Yes, and that point is that you clearly don't understand my problem with Russell's Teapot. All you do is dismiss it away. Russell's TP is intended to demonstrate the viability of any unprovable contention. What you for some reason (you are clearly intelligent enough) are avoiding is my assertion that comparing an unknowable quality to a known analog is fallacious reasoning. cont...
@JanJiska Not to lurch into a Zeno's paradox but: You can't compare 1 to 0 since 0 is undefinable beyond being defined as not 1. You cannot compare a human creation to God since God is undefinable.
The act of so defining God makes him not God. That is Russell's point.
Russell was a liar. If you wish to cling to that, do so. I've proven my point to the rational limit. We are otherwise then at your superstitions and I can't rationally grapple with a thing you can't verbalize.
@JanJiska I used 1 and 0 as shorthand for 'something and nothing', you don't realize this?
You are now comparing pagan idols to a monotheistic god of spirit alone. Don't you know that they aren't the same even in an empirical sense?
"This is a daft statement."
Actually it isn't. Considering the Teapot analogy is a fairly obvious canard for reasons demonstrated, either he is a liar or is incompetent. I find the latter to be unlikely.
It is highly unlikely I missed the point, make it.
"Don't you know that they aren't the same even in an empirical sense"
They are to me.
"It is highly unlikely I missed the point, make it. !"
The point he was making is that any non scientific instance can be claimed and then if the claimant hides it from scientific proof various excuses can be concocted for it and properties assigned to it, see also The Pink Unicorn.
It is not for science to disprove these claims, it is for the claimant to prove them to be taken seriously
That's like saying a car and an animal are the same thing if they have the same name. If you don't know the difference, I can't help you.
"...it is for the claimant to prove them to be taken seriously."
Tomorrow at noon, prove that I am thinking (baring my death of course). There are different types of proof and not everything yields to scientific examination. The moment you argue that it does, you allow the possessor of the science to cont...
@JanJiska "Tomorrow at noon, prove that I am thinking "
"I cannot and why would I try?"
I made a statement about science. The question supported that statement. The expectation is that you respond to the question. I'm failing to understand why you did not.
"The question supported that statement. The expectation is that you respond to the question. I'm failing to understand why you did not."
Erm ... I did ... I fail to see how you could think I did not? Or are you trying to hide behind word play again? You are pretty good at it, you remind me a little of Humphrey in Yes Minister.
@JanJiska cont...otherwise, then no judgment of science can be questioned. The claim that science can know everything is the same as the claim that it does know everything.
Thus, the Teapot doesn't even make it to Teapot status if you are using that line of reasoning. I wish you had told me, it would have saved quite a bit of time.
@JanJiska If you were grasping the point your comments would be to the point. They are not.
"No such thing as atheist philosophy."
Consider this perspectivet: Atheists advance their philosophy by undefining social constructs. For instance: sex isn't reproduction, it's recreation: Children aren't extensions of the parental/cultural body, they're citizens of the state. The unborn aren't humans, they are growths. And so on. Undefining things is Atheist habit. Thus, your statement is circular.
Nonsensical, rubbish. My, your ripostes are limber and quick to the target.
"No fallacy, just fact."
You have no facts on your side. All you have is an ancient hideous death cult religion that has resurfaced behind a mask called science. All you have is a more efficient killing orgy. Nothing more. Atheism in no way elevates mankind. It is the religion of drunkards, prostitutes, and homosexuals.
@JanJiska "Thanks. I have very limited time to read and relpy to you."
Heh, notwithstanding my sarcasm, are you assuming I have otherwise?
"Atheism is not ancient."
It isn't? Are you certain of this? Organized Atheist cults are seemingly new.
"Not more effiecient that your God's..."
Are you god? If not, then you're wrestling with a tautological fact. If God is god then if he were to kill all life and start over, it would be a good thing. And, no, that doesn't prove he would.
I think they are so new they have not been invented yet!
" If God is god then if he were to kill all life and start over, it would be a good thing"
Why? What about if he killled millions of people but spared one family. Sounds like a bully to me! But I am sure we agree he has killed more than any human group ever has.
How about lets just assume that it is possible to build a religion by making it that which is other than those religions previously observed. How about we do that and also consider it possible that some people will still recognize it as a religion since there is a basic fact of religion that cannot be escaped. That will save us a great bit of maneuvering will it not?
If you are going to argue to the existence of God, then do so. I really don't know how to explain this to you. Nesting an argument to the existence of God within another argument in no way proves the other argument. I'm un-nesting this. In so doing, your argument collapses. Live with it. Trying to stuff it back in there and in so doing presuming I won't see it in no way advances the conversation.
@JanJiska "So how many people did atheists kill last century?"
Some estimates go well over 100 m. I tend to agree with those since the knowns suggest large unknowns. That of course could be wrong. Then when you add the genocide of abortion you get hundreds of millions. Atheists can't draw up a middle ground in this. Either a life is a life or it isn't. Renaming life, well, Orwell warned of that decades ago.
Some atheists are pro choice some are not (like myself unless it is due to severe medical grounds). There is no 'atheist doctorine'. This is another instance of the paranoia fallacy.
"This is kind of a Nirvana fallacy meets Law of the Excluded Middle monstrosity. Bell curve the thing and you get a doctrine."
The smokescreen trick again.
"digitalsurvivors."
Interesting, a lot more people die under communism than I realised. Deaths by organised religion seems to be about 809 million but is streched over a different time line, I have no time to consolidate it, my apologies.
// users. erols. com /mwhite28/ warstatz.htm# RelCon
@JanJiska I'm not digging your sources. There's a reason that war dead are left out of these types of estimates. I also noticed that a high end approximation was used for the Spanish Inquisition. I recommend you read Torture and the Grand Conspiracy, by Ruthven. Atheists very often confuse the violent acquisition of land religious intent. In any event, I'll agree, there has been much bloodshed by religions, But the rate of murder matters, and Atheism rules. You can't count war for either side.
"Atheists very often confuse the violent acquisition of land religious intent"
People often confuse the action of a group with the category of the group. This is often used in the paranoia fallacy. Deaths caused by atheists is not the same as deaths caused because of atheism. Otherwise, we could also demonise all men with moustaches due to the amount of dictators who have had them. I will call this the moustache fallacy.
@JanJiska "confuse the action of a group with the category of the group"
I agree, including Atheists and Christians.
"Deaths caused by atheists is not the same as deaths caused because of atheism"
Whilst this is true, it is nonetheless an important note. Then, when we look at abortion, and other genocidal behaviors like encouraged homosexuality, poverty inducing environmentalism, social slavery, population control, all aspects of modern Atheism, the killing ties in too neatly.
This is not do to people not believing in a supernatural creature watching over them. This is people being people. The ethnic cleansing carried out by the British Empire was brutal and yet it was a Christian country. The sacrifices carried out by the Aztecs are hideous but they were devout theists. The European invastion of American was viscious but all countries concerned were Christian ones etc
@JanJiska "This is not do to people not believing in a supernatural creature watching over them"
Ah, but your problem is that it occurs when a society dies. Atheism is but one vehicle for this. You are right in it being a thing people do, a thing people do when their culture is dying. Atheism is a part of that death process. It is the culture rationalizing its own suicide.
The rest of what you wrote was mostly military stuff, Atheists kill their own, they tend to be inept militarily.
"Atheists kill their own, they tend to be inept militarily"
This just sounds like name calling again. The US troops are known for killing their own side and it has nothing to do with their religion, merely lack of basic training.
@JanJiska "This just sounds like name calling again."
Atheist cultures murder their own citizens. And, they tend to be inept militarily. It isn't personal, it is just history. Who they murder changes. But, the victims will have been made vulnerable by having been stripped of their personhood. This is perhaps best exemplified by the essentially universal habit of Atheist refusing personhood to the unborn and killing them. A good point of perspective is the Down's children genocide.
"Russia and China are inept militarily. Look at Afghanistan and N. Korea."
Ah, I see it is a strawman argument again. You almost caught me there! The intentional confusion of something that is apparent in a group being attributed to being because of the group. Rather like claiming all people who have a moustache are dictators.
@JanJiska "Ah, I see it is a strawman argument again"
Allow me to be more clear: Slaves don't fight as well as free people and leeches don't fight as well as free people. This is another tautology. I don't care to prove things that are so obvious their discussion benefits only those intent upon deception.
[ "The US troops are known for killing their own side" ]
""Known by whom? The producers of anti-military movies?"
Soliders from other nations. Look at the incidents of friendly fire in Iraq. My brother did 22 years in army and served in Iraq. He is off the opinions that the Americans whilst fine people and brave soldiers did not have sufficient training and hence caused a high proportion of accidents. Their policies on how to intereact with locals was poor too.
@JanJiska "Americans whilst fine people and brave soldiers did not have sufficient training and hence caused a high proportion of accidents."
As compared to what? I enjoy military history, though I don't consider myself to be beyond a hobbyist. I know of no military action of that scope that even comes close to having conducted with such precision. Every problem has three sides, the good, the bad, and the real. Context alone keeps things in the real.
Erm .. as compared to other armed forces in the same area doing (with slight variations) the same job.
My brother used to run training courses for special forces. The US SEALs fell apart and aborted one training exercise that the SAS walked through with ease the week before. The US Rangers were demolished in a training exercise against standard (i.e. non special force) British infantry (my brother was in the unit).
@JanJiska "as compared to other armed forces in the same area doing (with slight variations) the same job"
Too general. Produce historical conflicts of any significance that resulted in lower civilian casualties that demonstrated a trend on the part of the American military.
"The US SEALs fell apart and aborted one training exercise that the SAS walked through with ease the week before"
The military people I know have little respect for British forces, does that make them inept?
"Too general. Produce historical conflicts of any significance that resulted in lower civilian casualties that demonstrated a trend on the part of the American military."
No body mentioned anything about civillian causualties.
"The military people I know have little respect for British forces, does that make them inept"
I suppose so, although I am not sure the military people you know would be pleased if you told them to their faces that they are inept.
@JanJiska As I understand it, the British forces are best applied to guard duty and behind the lines reinforcements. If I remember correctly, the militarily insignificant Argentinian military wrecked havoc on the Brits. and the SAS stood down and refused to take missions or failed at missions.
Personally, I want to give you all over to the Muslims. I'm sick of having part of my paycheck go to defend Europeans who lack the intestinal fortitude to eject people who have knives at their throats.
@JanJiska --You can't count war for either side--
"I can and do."
There is a reason why scholars don't though.
For instance, if someone comes in my house at night and I kill him, that is self-defense. If I kill my family, that is murder. Blurring these distinctions is exactly what causes infanticide, the treating of a newborn baby as an intruder. Civilization has been built up by rejecting such destructions of distinctions.
@JanJiska "Maybe, however this does not really change the fact that many people died in holy wars does it?"
Nor does it change the fact that I had a flat tire last month? I'm not sure how you got there. How about, I don't believe in holy wars, I consider all wars to be for the purpose of taking ground or defending ground. Nothing in my military history reading suggests otherwise. However, internal slaughter is a completely different point.
@JanJiska cont...Wars are not the same as social genocide by despots. Social genocide is the hallmark of Atheist cultures, it is a definitive quality since it is so pervasive, literally, all Atheist cultures commit some form of genocide. In Wester culture, for instance, there is a genocide being practiced upon people with Down's Syndrome.
As a practical fact, you (or any Atheist) cannot make the statement you made since you would be un-defining an Atheist quality, a despotic act.
@JanJiska "only one atheistic quality..that is not believing in a god"
This would only be true if I hadn't demonstrated several behaviors that have at least a bell curve commonality across the Atheist spectrum. But, I have sufficiently demonstrated this.
"Wasn't Hitler a Catholic?"
No, Hitler was a Socialist/Atheist. His Socialism though roughly compares to Pol Pot's Communism. He was going to exterminate all Christians.
"This would only be true if I hadn't demonstrated several behaviors that have at least a bell curve commonality across the Atheist spectrum"
No it is just true. Any attempt to use the paranoia fallacy to show otherwise at best shows people being people regardless of whether they believe in supernatural creatures.
"No, Hitler was a Socialist/Atheist" "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." - Adolf Hitler
@JanJiska }"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"
"I didn't lie." Richard Nixon. You are in a sad state when the proof of your claims depend upon the testimony of politicians, heh. Historical records demonstrate Hitler's non-Christian status.
"So you agree"
The Aztecs pruned subjugated people and in so doing militarily kept them from being able to mount a resistance. Another way of doing this is forced tribute. Compare this to the Minotaur legend.
I'm guessing you forgot the original thrust of this.
"No, just showing that people"
Nope, you're asserting that if 1 priests molests and 15 teachers molest, it is the same thing since both groups include molesters. I call equivocation.
"The only difference"
That's an Atheist truth, "The universe is one, complete, and indistinguishable in its parts." Theist truth is that everyone is unique. Your truth is likely unknown to you, that's all.
"Hmm, no, I got it right the first time, as usual."
The arrogance trick again - yawn
"And magic is your friend"
You believe in magic and supernatural creatures, not me. That is more than goal post moving, that is trying to reverse the pitch!!!
"Atheists are at things just popping into existence"
Absolute rubbish. We just do not see enough proof to make us believe in imaginary supernatural creatures. Perhaps you should look up 'atheist' in a dictionary at some point?
@JanJiska "You believe in magic and supernatural creatures, not me."
This is far from the case. Atheism is based upon the presupposition that life, and if not life, all of reality, simply popped into existence. It is in this way a reckless remnant of pagan theology.
"Perhaps you should look up 'atheist' in a dictionary at some point?"
Hmm, no, I think I'm beyond a dictionary. out of curiosity, do you know where dictionary definitions come from?
"Atheism is based upon the presupposition that life, and if not life, all of reality, simply popped into existence"
It is based upon no such thing. I have no idea how things came to exist. I simply have not seen enough evidence to make me believe in a supernatural creator - anything you build on that is the paranoia fallacy.
@JanJiska "I simply have not seen enough evidence"
That's agnosticism. It's like Deism in that both merely remove the problem one step, giving the 'believer' a place to hide from the resoundingly obvious fact that Atheism is flawed.
"Hmm, no, I think I'm beyond a dictionary"
I am not suprised you think that."
Of course you aren't. You have no idea what I'm getting at half the time and are developing a habit of taking the least effort. Dictionaries are for children. Any adult cont..
@JanJiska "I am as agnostic about any of the gods as I am about the pink unicorn, tooth fairy and boogeyman."
You argument here resolves itself into a no-god argument, meaning, your examples are useless to the argument, they're distractions, not truth-building examples.
"don't think you do either"
The problem with that is that I've done this hundreds of times. You aren't unique. You are using sophistry in place of rational argument. Why? Because Atheism is in fact indefensible.
"You argument here resolves itself into a no-god argument"
Good , that was my point.
"The problem with that is that I've done this hundreds of times"
I can tell. You adopt the smokescreen trick and when this does not intimidate your opponent , the arrogance trick all based on the paranoia fallacy and throwing in the kettle fallacy when it suits you.
"I can tell. You adopt the smokescreen trick and when this does not intimidate your opponent , the arrogance trick all based on the paranoia fallacy and throwing in the kettle fallacy when it suits you."
If that is the way you wish to see it, so be it. It is scarcely proof to apply a label without supporting argument.
@JanJiska " still use mine for looking up the long words you use and correcting my spelling (and scabble of course)."
I too use a dictionary, for words I don't know. We are all children in some way and to some degree. But, words have structures, like automobiles, and contextual variations, and such. There is much more to a word than the dictionary can contain.
@JanJiska cont... should have at least a basic understanding of etymology, linguists, and conventions. Dictionaries give general usage but are far from accurate and aren't necessarily intended to be accurate so much as they are intended to unify a language, an impossible task. Nuance and context often have more to do with the meaning of a word than its dictionary analog reveals.
@JanJiska cont... Thus, I can compare a snake to a tree branch since there are connective qualities. I can even compare a photon to a brick, though the connections are very few. But I cannot compare anything in the universe to the proto-singularity that was the universe prior to time. There is no analogue but...drumroll...God. Russell committed the classic Atheist canard. He proved a point by separating it from its context. In other words, he lied.
Are you saying that there is a gap in our scientific knowledge you are claiming that you God is in that gap? I am sure there is a name for that type of argument ...
"A gap has two sides. This is origins, a unity concept, whatever it is, there is no gap"
This is just word play. As said previously there is a gap in our scientific knowledge which you are filling with your god. Like when the Aztecs thought that their god caused the sun to rise because they could not imagine another way it could happen. Your attempts to obfusciate this point, whilst impressive, are empty.
"A gap has two sides. This is origins, a unity concept, whatever it is, there is no gap"
"This is just word play."
Actually it is an intuitive response. I can't see how it is possible to know anything beyond the singularity. Thus, I find God to be more consistent with a logical mind. You are using a devise to categorize a very simple statement into a thing it isn't. Being a simple statement, it is also an obvious statement. I believe. There's nothing on the other side of that.
@JanJiska But Russell doesn't do this. He instead deceives the audience with a clever ruse, a distraction. Why? Because it is absurd to attempt to argue that God doesn't exist. Russell removes the problem a step or two and pretends he has bested an opposing religions system. This is, basically, the same problem as the spacemen seeding the earth. If so, then who seeded the spacemen's planets. And, it ultimately is the same problem that evades Atheistic explanations of the origin of the universe.
@JanJiska Okay, read this close, I'm filling no gaps. I know exactly what you mean. There is no confusion on my part in any way and I'll be happy to discuss the subject in detail if that is what it takes to rip this red herring form your hands.
There is a paradox for both sides. Don't be a fanatic. I can suffer my side of the paradox without declaring perfect a man made activity operated upon by a flawed organ. Why can't you? Would it shake your beliefs too much?
Science does not know what created the universe (a gap in our knowledge) - you are placing your god there (a god in the gaps). This is called a God of the gaps argument. I cannot make it any simpler.
"There is a paradox for both sides"
No there is not. I have no preconceived ideas for reality to clash with, unlike a theist. What is discovered is discovered if it is a god I will worship it.
@JanJiska So, if I say, hmm, I wonder what is in that box, and I guess tools, since it looks like a tool box, then I'm filling in the gaps? If that's the case, then 'gaps' has no meaning. Otherwise, I submit that speculation, even that of faith, has nothing to do with your crutch.
The 'God of the gaps' presumes a god caused a thing that cannot be sufficiently explained by science.
@JanJiska I'm not explaining anything. I'm asserting that anything that existed prior to the BB perforce must have existed as a paradox since it must have existed in some infinite state. I choose to believe that a rational consciousness that mirrors our consciousness is the best explanation.
Either way, you didn't understand the problem. The problem is the demonstration of an incapacity of human thought, not a flaw in the universe. You think man is god and that there is no flaw.
@JanJiska "The world's best minds have not figured that out..."
I don't have one of the world's best minds, and I don't blindly trust people in power anyway. I do have my mind. and I've been thinking about this for years and cannot come to any other conclusion but that a singularity such as the universe, would be dimensionless.
As well, how do you know they know more than me about it? Isn't that a belief of yours? Considering you don't know me at all?
"As well, how do you know they know more than me about it? "
Statistics. There are few people who know more than the world's top minds about things and it is unlikely they would be talking like you do on YouTube.
"Considering you don't know me at all?"
How do you know that? We might well know each other and simply not recognise each other's handles.
This is ad vericundium. Interestingly, you gave a positive comment of my admission of belief. But, when challenged, you refuse to admit your belief (the whole point of the challenge). Suggesting instead that Atheists are the least skeptical of the skeptics.
"How do you know that?"
Statistics.
Actually, you could know me, I get a lot of traffic.
@JanJiska cont...kill at leisure. This is a very difficult problem. I really don't expect you to understand it since Atheism appears to destroy the individual's capacity to understand such things, hence, the genocides of the great Atheistic cultures. I do man no insult, btw.
Once you grant an institution absolute understanding, you imbue that institution with absolute authority. But, imperfect humans run institutions. Hence, if science is infinite in understanding, potential or cont...
I think the problem that you have tripped over is the fact that the greater the claim the greater the burden of proof. If I told you I had eggs for breakfast you might just take my word as proof. If I told you that I had eggs with Brad Pitt you might find that less likely unless I could provide additional proof.
"genocides of the great Atheistic cultures"
Ah yes. The many crusades\terror attacks\holy wars etc in the name of atheism.
@JanJiska cont...I say this since war conflicts with a spiritual life. In any event, Atheists killed more by orders of magnitude. At best your argument will end up being a Nirvana fallacy.
More than God? I think he specifies killing 2,476,633 people in the bible. The total is more like 24,644,205 when everything is counted.
Please let me know these atheist killings, I will be interested in the reading up on them.
At the moment your arguement does not even make it to being a Nirvana fallacy, it stumbles at simply being wrong as far as I can see. Please correct me.
This is an argument to the proof of god and in this case is a red herring. We can explore that argument if you wish, but I don't think either of us will manage well.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ton Duc Thang, etc, the list is long. Add to that abortion and the horrors of partial birth abortion. Then, the press to euthanasia (a means by which younger people get mom killed and quick inheritance).
"This is an argument to the proof of god and in this case is a red herring"
No, it is a comparison to the amount of people killed by atheists and by your God. You disprove of people killing people but do not mind when your God does it?
Your argument is flawed anyway. You are confusing things done by atheists with things done because of atheism. This is nonsensical. It is like combining all people who do not like golf under one (non golfing) umbrella.
I tend to prefer to offer my arguments and cross examination against the same from my opponent and let the chips fall where they may. Information is diluted by belief and both sides of this have more than enough blind belief in play.
Belief means: Accepting a thing without knowing it with empirical certainty. The distance from certainty equals the level of belief. Arguing that you don't have beliefs that are consequential to Atheism is begging the question.
"Arguing that you don't have beliefs that are consequential to Atheism is begging the question."
I would say not. I simply do not believe there is a god. If someone can prove there is I am all ears because I want to know. There is not question begging any more so than me not believing aliens are abducting people is.
@JanJiska You are saying that you are an Atheist and you don't have beliefs because Atheists don't have beliefs, that is begging the question as clearly as it can be.
"You are saying that you are an Atheist and you don't have beliefs because Atheists don't have beliefs"
Atheists do not believe in a god, nothing more and nothing less. Seriously, this is not rocket science. You seem to be kicking up smoke and pretending there is something behind it.
This hard language for me :(
But I love it:)
itiswritten77 1 month ago
most of part 1 is introduction from the debate team people... part 2 is where Bahnsen starts off the actual debate...
melonbarmonster 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 1: veritasdomain. wordpress. com /2006/12/05/greg-bahnsen-vs-gordon-stein-the-great-debate/
MajSmJz 6 months ago
This compilation of videos "UFO Disclosure A Global Deception Conspiracy"
ON YOUTUBE is a revelation of major lies and with held knowledge about life
beyond Earth. The footage contains statements from astronauts, American
presidents, military personnel, politicians plus credible news footage regarding
awareness of life beyond Earth along with it's current and ongoing presence which
is being hidden from the public + more.
Futurecop2012B 7 months ago in playlist Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein - The Great Debate
5:52 - GREAT point... Bahnsen totally puts him away...
WatchHawk 9 months ago
Go to cmf.com. I thnk it costs 2$ tho, But I thnk I get the whole debate, It's bn on my iPod for yrs. & I've listened to it many times
plato7770 10 months ago
Where's the Part 1?
1120110 11 months ago 5
@1120110 Part one has been removed due to copyright claims. Somehow the remaining 13 parts have been left up.
thepaulblog 5 days ago in playlist Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein - The Great Debate
Comment removed
1120110 11 months ago
Where can I find part one?
99percentatheist 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@99percentatheist
veritasdomain. wordpress. com /2006/12/05/greg-bahnsen-vs-gordon-stein-the-great-debate/
MajSmJz 6 months ago
Comment removed
MajSmJz 6 months ago
@99percentatheist 99% atheist :)
MajSmJz 6 months ago
Comment removed
jacksmack77 11 months ago
I liked this debate a lot. Greg Bahnsen demolished Dr. Stein. But I don't think Stein was the best proponent of atheism out there. I think if Michael Martin did go through with debating Bahnsen, THAT would have been "The Great Debate".
VlaDiDaDiY 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
any "presupper" of any Abrahamic religion needs to go to
bahnsenburner.blogspot.com
and prepare to have your argument incinerated. please post on dawson's blog so he can talk some sense into you and keep you from walking around in confused circles of fallacies for the rest of your life. lol
actionjackson864 1 year ago
TAG is just another argument from ignorance/incredulity.
PaulBarte 1 year ago
@PaulBarte And that's just an assertion.
derocdero 1 year ago
@derocdero Like the one about a God being real when all others are false? :-)
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska yep, that is also just an assertion but seems to me that Bahnsen defended that assertion pretty well and Stein was the one who was left with no answer whatsoever. Be honest.
derocdero 1 year ago
@derocdero : Absolutely, Stein was hammered in this. However I do not think that Bahnsen was that good, merely Stein was terrible.
The laws of logic support an atheist world view rather than a theistic one, IMHO. Stein should have explained that we do not know they are eternally consistant. We only know that they are to the best of our understanding.
If they are caused by a deity Bahnsen did not explain why it should be his rather than a different one, Stein should have pressed that.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska This is exactly why debates suck as a proper forum for this sort of thing; too much depends on A: how quickly and/or glibly person is able to respond (which is different from having a good point), B: how easy it is to rattle the opponent (who may merely be nervous or intimidated). This is why I pity/respect and theist who goes up against Hitchens. Bahnsen was hands-down a better debater than Stein... but his actual arguments, upon reflection, are ridiculous.
sincristo 1 year ago
@sincristo Exactly. All a debate will prove is who won the debate on that day at that time according to that audience.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@sincristo How are his arguments ridiculous, especially considering you mentioned the fatuous Hitchins who flounders when going up against D'Souza and resorts to drawing burlesque caricatures of Christianity as offerings of arguments.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow Well, that's precisely my point. Hitchens is a formidable speaker; in a debate, his arguments mean very little compared to his quick vocabulary and his delivery. Same for Bahnsen.
Not that I mind Hitch's debatorial prowess, mind you... it's quite fun to watch, although admittedly the whole concept of Christianity does lend itself rather readily to caricature.
sincristo 1 year ago
@sincristo The lending of a things self to caricature tends, in my judgment, tends to be not so much an aspect of the thing as it is the mind of the viewer of that caricature, specifically in the case of traditional cultures. Atheism is just as readily rendered absurd, the only difference is a lack of 'artists' to make such renderings.
In any event, I was interested specifically in the points Bahnsen made that were ridiculous. For instance, Hitchens absurdly denounces the value of sacrifice.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow Re: caricature: take a gander at Pope Benedict's favorite hat sometime. Atheists have nothin' on that guy, nor will they anytime soon.
Regarding Hitchens/sacrifice: Hitch denounces sacrifice when A) it is done by one person, in advance, for the perceived "sins" of another and B) it is used to blackmail the unwilling "beneficiary" into subverting reason and prostrating himself in eternal subservience as payment for a "favor" which was never requested. On pain of eternal torture, yet.
sincristo 1 year ago
@sincristo Hitchens denounces sacrifice because it is convenient to his argument and he can use his rhetorical wit to make it appear absurd. The point is the point you made in that the measure is the wit, not the subject at hand.
Sacrifice is a personal aspect of discipline. Undisciplined people likely cannot understand it at all since life is an accretive process and the unexperienced cannot know. A hedonist commenting on sacrifice is like a butcher commenting on watch making.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
I think that the arguments which Banhsen offered which were absurd are that the laws of logic prove the existance of the Christian God as they could not exist otherwise.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska I didn't get that out of it. As I understood it, the statement was that the laws of logic have no more credible existence than the Christian God. Meaning, there are things which exist without possessing provable criteria. Thence, the fact that the universe has laws that are perceivable but insubstantial is demonstrable of a lawful God. I seriously doubt Bahnsen said the laws of logic prove the existence of God, but feel free to point me to the clip if I'm wrong.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
Sorry about the delay - I have been away.
I am not relistening to the entire debate. Apart from anything else I feel too sorry for Stein, I hate seeing people humiliated.
However, even taking your interpretation there is still no sense.
"Meaning, there are things which exist without possessing provable criteria"
1 God claims to have provable criteria.
2 Using this argument I can prove Russells Teapot, Pink Unicorn or any other godlike superpower.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Don't you think though that Stein's aggressiveness and unwillingness to act withing the constraints of the rules of the debate condemned him more than anything?
No, you can't prove Russell's Teapot. A teapot doesn't mirror the reasoning of humanity. Therein the bulk of your problem lies: As we define the universe we find we are missing something. The theist has a thing, the Atheist has nothing and refuses to go further.
The Christian answer isn't perfect, it is just better.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow "Don't you think though that Stein's aggressiveness and unwillingness to act withing the constraints of the rules of the debate condemned him more than anything"
No, I did not notice any of that. I just thought he was completely out of his depth.
"A teapot doesn't mirror the reasoning of humanity"
Russell's does.
"As we define the universe we find we are missing something"
Ah - I believe this is called 'God of the gaps'.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"Don't you think though that Stein's aggressiveness ... condemned him"
No, I did not get that at all. I thought both men acted like gentlemen.
"No, you can't prove Russell's Teapot. A teapot doesn't mirror the reasoning of humanity."
Russells can! Even if it could not, why does that mean it cannot be proved?
"The theist has a thing, the Atheist has nothing and refuses to go further."
This is called the "God of the Gaps".
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska You must not have been paying good attention, Stein refused to abide by the rules of the debate and was rude at points.
Russell's teapot is an absurdity. The problem with it lie not in the fact that it is unseen, but that it is a teapot and not a chunk of stone. A teapot is 'made' and Russell required a made object for his example. To be more clear, even Russell required a creator of some sort for his analogy to make sense. cont...
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"Stein refused to abide by the rules of the debate and was rude at points."
When?
"A teapot is 'made' and Russell required a made object for his exam"
Not this one, it has always existed.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska He attempted to change the topic of the debate for one.
"Not this one, it has always existed."
I'm pretty sure you don't understand your problem. Allow me:
There is a door. On one side of the door is that of which you are aware. On the other other side is that of which you aren't aware. The fact of the door demonstrates the presence of that which is on the other side and it isn't nothing, or the unknowable, or even the unknown. It is simply the unrevealed.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"He attempted to change the topic of the debate for one."
When was this, please?
Also, please provide the examples of his rudeness which you mentioned earlier.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Bahnsen called him on it, it is a very obvious part of the debate. His rudeness is also obvious. Tell me, why should I again watch the debate when you refuse to?
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"Bahnsen called him on it, it is a very obvious part of the debate"
When?
"Tell me, why should I again watch the debate when you refuse to"
Because you are claiming events which happen in the debate and I am not. When pressed I conceeded my point and debunked your argument rather than what was on the debate.
You claim that Stein was rude and changed the subject - state when or retract your claim.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska At 5:15 on tape Stein begins an inappropriate line of questioning. He commits cheats like this in other places. You find them. As well, he is rude in places, lets just consider cheating to be rude and be done with it.
This reminds me of, I think it was Al Gore, in a prez debate. He brought material when it was agreed no material would be used. This kind of cheating happens in debates. You're free of course to not view this as a cheat, considering it is in your best interests to not.
yedrow 1 year ago
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "Not really sure why this is relevant."
I didn't express that well. Stein cheated by trying to introduce a line of argument that wasn't agreed upon in the terms of the debate. He did this in other places. If you don't consider that cheating then we are at a dead end since Stein is on your side and I can't know if you: a) Don't understand, b) Are right and I'm wrong, c) Protecting your interests. Frankly, he's obviously cheating.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
You were talking about Bush, not Stein. The example you gave of Stein cheating was actually Bahnsen talking!
"Stein cheated "
When? When was he rude?
"Frankly, he's obviously cheating. "
Frankly, when?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Actually, Bahnsen pointed out the cheat. The cheat didn't cease to be a cheat because he pointed it out. I assure you, it remains a cheat to this day.
Stein attempted to use as evidence parameters that weren't agreed upon in the initial negotiations. In a sense he was, like you, moving the goalpost.
Why would I watch this again to find that point when you aren't accepting this point?
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"Bahnsen pointed out the cheat. The cheat didn't cease to be a cheat because he pointed it out. I assure you, it remains a cheat to this day."
So where is it? Your previous examlpe of a cheat was false.
"Why would I watch this again to find that point when you aren't accepting this point"
Because your point is it happened and mine is when? Asking someone to prove a claim like this is not unreasonable. Why can't you do it?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Again, I grow weary of 'moving the goalpost' games. I illustrated and elaborated upon the point, address the point illustrated please.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"I illustrated and elaborated upon the point, address the point illustrated please"
What? Again? You are yet to provide these examples of Stein being rude and cheating. Your other points have been addressed as you raised them. What do you feel is left over?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@yedrow,
I am an idiot - you said Al Gore not George Bush! DOH!
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska No worries, I got that. :)
yedrow 1 year ago
@JanJiska In any event, I'm concerned that we are in the early stages of a 'moving the goalpost' game that is using the 'burden of proof' fallacy as a stalking horse.
yedrow 1 year ago
@JanJiska What you are doing with the teapot is putting it on the side of the door that most conveniences your beliefs. You see, the teapot is known, it is on the aware side of the door. It cannot be made to be otherwise. God is only known though the presence of the door on the aware side, but is otherwise on the unrevealed side. In other words, you cannot make an analog of an unrevealed thing.
The solution to Russel's Teapot is that he should have simply asserted that God didn't exist.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
You have completely and utterly missed the point of Russell's teapot. Please retry.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska No, I'm not missing the point of Russell's Teapot, I'm rendering it moot. I perfectly understand the point of, I just understand much more than the point of it. A creation cannot be equated to the creator. It is a logical fallacy to presume the nonexistence of the creator in order to resolve the problem.
Consider this: Name for me an unnamable thing.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"No, I'm not missing the point of Russell's Teapot, I'm rendering it moot. "
No, you are attempting to change it or you have missed it altogether.
"Name for me an unnamable thing"
Certainly, I shall name it "the unnameable". Was there a point you were trying to make there?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "Certainly, I shall name it "the unnameable". Was there a point you were trying to make there?"
Yes, and that point is that you clearly don't understand my problem with Russell's Teapot. All you do is dismiss it away. Russell's TP is intended to demonstrate the viability of any unprovable contention. What you for some reason (you are clearly intelligent enough) are avoiding is my assertion that comparing an unknowable quality to a known analog is fallacious reasoning. cont...
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"Yes, and that point is that you clearly don't understand my problem with Russell's Teapot."
I do, I just think it is one that you have manufactured to sidestep the point.
Yes because it is irrelevant.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Not to lurch into a Zeno's paradox but: You can't compare 1 to 0 since 0 is undefinable beyond being defined as not 1. You cannot compare a human creation to God since God is undefinable.
The act of so defining God makes him not God. That is Russell's point.
Russell was a liar. If you wish to cling to that, do so. I've proven my point to the rational limit. We are otherwise then at your superstitions and I can't rationally grapple with a thing you can't verbalize.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"You can't compare 1 to 0 since 0 is undefinable beyond being defined as not 1."
Incorrect. Many numbers are not 1. 0 is, primarily, defined as being a number that when added to a number yields the original.
"The act of so defining God makes him not God"
Several Gods have been defined throughout history. Why is yours different?
"Russell was a liar"
This is a daft statement.
" I've proven my point to the rational limit."
And missed his point.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska I used 1 and 0 as shorthand for 'something and nothing', you don't realize this?
You are now comparing pagan idols to a monotheistic god of spirit alone. Don't you know that they aren't the same even in an empirical sense?
"This is a daft statement."
Actually it isn't. Considering the Teapot analogy is a fairly obvious canard for reasons demonstrated, either he is a liar or is incompetent. I find the latter to be unlikely.
It is highly unlikely I missed the point, make it.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"Don't you know that they aren't the same even in an empirical sense"
They are to me.
"It is highly unlikely I missed the point, make it. !"
The point he was making is that any non scientific instance can be claimed and then if the claimant hides it from scientific proof various excuses can be concocted for it and properties assigned to it, see also The Pink Unicorn.
It is not for science to disprove these claims, it is for the claimant to prove them to be taken seriously
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "They are to me."
That's like saying a car and an animal are the same thing if they have the same name. If you don't know the difference, I can't help you.
"...it is for the claimant to prove them to be taken seriously."
Tomorrow at noon, prove that I am thinking (baring my death of course). There are different types of proof and not everything yields to scientific examination. The moment you argue that it does, you allow the possessor of the science to cont...
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"That's like saying a car and an animal are the same thing if they have the same name"
No, it is like saying that one person's unproven spiritual beliefs are just like someone else's unproven spiritual beliefs.
"Tomorrow at noon, prove that I am thinking "
I cannot and why would I try?
JanJiska 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska "Tomorrow at noon, prove that I am thinking "
"I cannot and why would I try?"
I made a statement about science. The question supported that statement. The expectation is that you respond to the question. I'm failing to understand why you did not.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"The question supported that statement. The expectation is that you respond to the question. I'm failing to understand why you did not."
Erm ... I did ... I fail to see how you could think I did not? Or are you trying to hide behind word play again? You are pretty good at it, you remind me a little of Humphrey in Yes Minister.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska cont...otherwise, then no judgment of science can be questioned. The claim that science can know everything is the same as the claim that it does know everything.
Thus, the Teapot doesn't even make it to Teapot status if you are using that line of reasoning. I wish you had told me, it would have saved quite a bit of time.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
" then no judgment of science can be questioned."
Science is constantly questioned from all angles.
"The claim that science can know everything is the same as the claim that it does know everything."
What? No it is not.
"Teapot doesn't even make it to Teapot status if you are using that line of reasoning"
And neither does your god make it to god status. The teapot is there, I know it is as I have telepathic communication with it.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "Science is constantly questioned from all angles."
You, like totally aren't grasping the enormity of the problem I presented to you.
"What? No it is not."
Yes it is. You are ignoring the nature of time, especially as it relates to Atheist philosophy. It is a context problem, but that probably won't help.
You aren't understanding the teapot argument either.
Look, I don't see things according to convention. You can't read my stuff like you would read Discovery magazine.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"You, like totally aren't grasping the enormity of the problem I presented to you."
I think I am. I just think that rather than a problem of merit, it is despeate philosophical straw clutching.
"You are ignoring the nature of time, especially as it relates to Atheist philosophy"
No such thing as atheist philosophy. There is such thing an an atheist's philosophy but that is it.
"You aren't understanding the teapot argument either."
It I am not then neither was Russell!
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska If you were grasping the point your comments would be to the point. They are not.
"No such thing as atheist philosophy."
Consider this perspectivet: Atheists advance their philosophy by undefining social constructs. For instance: sex isn't reproduction, it's recreation: Children aren't extensions of the parental/cultural body, they're citizens of the state. The unborn aren't humans, they are growths. And so on. Undefining things is Atheist habit. Thus, your statement is circular.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"Consider this perspectivet: Atheists advance their philosophy by undefining social constructs"
Considered and rejected as rubbish.
"I see you as arguing a Nirvana fallacy by asserting that unless all Atheists share the same beliefs then there is no Atheistic philosophy."
No fallacy, just fact.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "Considered and rejected as rubbish."
Nonsensical, rubbish. My, your ripostes are limber and quick to the target.
"No fallacy, just fact."
You have no facts on your side. All you have is an ancient hideous death cult religion that has resurfaced behind a mask called science. All you have is a more efficient killing orgy. Nothing more. Atheism in no way elevates mankind. It is the religion of drunkards, prostitutes, and homosexuals.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"My, your ripostes are limber and quick to the target"
Thanks. I have very limitted time to read and relpy to you.
"All you have is an ancient hideous death cult religion that has resurfaced behind a mask called science"
Atheism is not ancient. Believe in the supernatural was the standard before people grew up.
"All you have is a more efficient killing orgy."
Not more effiecient that your God's killing an entire planet full of people (minus one familiy, of course).
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "Thanks. I have very limited time to read and relpy to you."
Heh, notwithstanding my sarcasm, are you assuming I have otherwise?
"Atheism is not ancient."
It isn't? Are you certain of this? Organized Atheist cults are seemingly new.
"Not more effiecient that your God's..."
Are you god? If not, then you're wrestling with a tautological fact. If God is god then if he were to kill all life and start over, it would be a good thing. And, no, that doesn't prove he would.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"are you assuming I have otherwise?!
Never thought about it to be honest!
"Organized Atheist cults are seemingly new."
I think they are so new they have not been invented yet!
" If God is god then if he were to kill all life and start over, it would be a good thing"
Why? What about if he killled millions of people but spared one family. Sounds like a bully to me! But I am sure we agree he has killed more than any human group ever has.
JanJiska 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska "I think they are so new"
Go to any college and see if you can find an Atheist club. Then, move the goalpost, yada yada.
"Why?"
It is a tautology.
"What about if he killled millions of people but spared one family."
This is answered by the original statement.
"Sounds like a bully to me!"
Only if you consider yourself to be god. And you do.
"But I am sure we agree"
That is a moot point. And, I doubt he killed more than Atheists in the last century.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"Go to any college and see if you can find an Atheist club"
Actually I have heard of 1. How many places of worship are there? What point are you trying to make?
"This is answered by the original statement"
And avoided by this statement.
"Only if you consider yourself to be god. And you do"
No and erm .. no.
"And, I doubt he killed more than Atheists in the last century."
So how many people did atheists kill last century?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "How many places of worship are there?"
How about lets just assume that it is possible to build a religion by making it that which is other than those religions previously observed. How about we do that and also consider it possible that some people will still recognize it as a religion since there is a basic fact of religion that cannot be escaped. That will save us a great bit of maneuvering will it not?
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"How about ..."
How about you just address the point rather than using the smokescreen trick again?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "And avoided by this statement"
If you are going to argue to the existence of God, then do so. I really don't know how to explain this to you. Nesting an argument to the existence of God within another argument in no way proves the other argument. I'm un-nesting this. In so doing, your argument collapses. Live with it. Trying to stuff it back in there and in so doing presuming I won't see it in no way advances the conversation.
yedrow 1 year ago
@JanJiska "So how many people did atheists kill last century?"
Some estimates go well over 100 m. I tend to agree with those since the knowns suggest large unknowns. That of course could be wrong. Then when you add the genocide of abortion you get hundreds of millions. Atheists can't draw up a middle ground in this. Either a life is a life or it isn't. Renaming life, well, Orwell warned of that decades ago.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"Some estimates go well over 100 m"
Really? What are the sources for these estimates?
"Atheists can't draw up a middle ground in this"
Some atheists are pro choice some are not (like myself unless it is due to severe medical grounds). There is no 'atheist doctorine'. This is another instance of the paranoia fallacy.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "There is no 'atheist doctorine'. This is another instance of the paranoia fallacy."
This is kind of a Nirvana fallacy meets Law of the Excluded Middle monstrosity. Bell curve the thing and you get a doctrine.
digitalsurvivors. com /archives /communistbodycount. php
Take out spaces, cut and paste.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"This is kind of a Nirvana fallacy meets Law of the Excluded Middle monstrosity. Bell curve the thing and you get a doctrine."
The smokescreen trick again.
"digitalsurvivors."
Interesting, a lot more people die under communism than I realised. Deaths by organised religion seems to be about 809 million but is streched over a different time line, I have no time to consolidate it, my apologies.
// users. erols. com /mwhite28/ warstatz.htm# RelCon
Remove spaces etc.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska I'm not digging your sources. There's a reason that war dead are left out of these types of estimates. I also noticed that a high end approximation was used for the Spanish Inquisition. I recommend you read Torture and the Grand Conspiracy, by Ruthven. Atheists very often confuse the violent acquisition of land religious intent. In any event, I'll agree, there has been much bloodshed by religions, But the rate of murder matters, and Atheism rules. You can't count war for either side.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Atheists very often confuse the violent acquisition of land religious intent"
People often confuse the action of a group with the category of the group. This is often used in the paranoia fallacy. Deaths caused by atheists is not the same as deaths caused because of atheism. Otherwise, we could also demonise all men with moustaches due to the amount of dictators who have had them. I will call this the moustache fallacy.
"You can't count war for either side."
I can and do.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "confuse the action of a group with the category of the group"
I agree, including Atheists and Christians.
"Deaths caused by atheists is not the same as deaths caused because of atheism"
Whilst this is true, it is nonetheless an important note. Then, when we look at abortion, and other genocidal behaviors like encouraged homosexuality, poverty inducing environmentalism, social slavery, population control, all aspects of modern Atheism, the killing ties in too neatly.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"other genocidal behaviors"
This is not do to people not believing in a supernatural creature watching over them. This is people being people. The ethnic cleansing carried out by the British Empire was brutal and yet it was a Christian country. The sacrifices carried out by the Aztecs are hideous but they were devout theists. The European invastion of American was viscious but all countries concerned were Christian ones etc
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "This is not do to people not believing in a supernatural creature watching over them"
Ah, but your problem is that it occurs when a society dies. Atheism is but one vehicle for this. You are right in it being a thing people do, a thing people do when their culture is dying. Atheism is a part of that death process. It is the culture rationalizing its own suicide.
The rest of what you wrote was mostly military stuff, Atheists kill their own, they tend to be inept militarily.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"Atheists kill their own, they tend to be inept militarily"
This just sounds like name calling again. The US troops are known for killing their own side and it has nothing to do with their religion, merely lack of basic training.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "This just sounds like name calling again."
Atheist cultures murder their own citizens. And, they tend to be inept militarily. It isn't personal, it is just history. Who they murder changes. But, the victims will have been made vulnerable by having been stripped of their personhood. This is perhaps best exemplified by the essentially universal habit of Atheist refusing personhood to the unborn and killing them. A good point of perspective is the Down's children genocide.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"Atheist cultures murder their own citizens"
Plenty of theistic cultures have done the same (and still do).
"And, they tend to be inept militarily"
On what do you base that? Obviously you conceed that being theistic does not gaurantee a strong military base?
JanJiska 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska "Plenty of theistic cultures have done the same (and still do)."
Not remotely to the same degree
""And, they tend to be inept militarily""
Russia and China are inept militarily. Look at Afghanistan and N. Korea.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"Russia and China are inept militarily. Look at Afghanistan and N. Korea."
Ah, I see it is a strawman argument again. You almost caught me there! The intentional confusion of something that is apparent in a group being attributed to being because of the group. Rather like claiming all people who have a moustache are dictators.
JanJiska 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska "Ah, I see it is a strawman argument again"
Allow me to be more clear: Slaves don't fight as well as free people and leeches don't fight as well as free people. This is another tautology. I don't care to prove things that are so obvious their discussion benefits only those intent upon deception.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska "The US troops are known for killing their own side"
Known by whom? The producers of anti-military movies?
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow
[ "The US troops are known for killing their own side" ]
""Known by whom? The producers of anti-military movies?"
Soliders from other nations. Look at the incidents of friendly fire in Iraq. My brother did 22 years in army and served in Iraq. He is off the opinions that the Americans whilst fine people and brave soldiers did not have sufficient training and hence caused a high proportion of accidents. Their policies on how to intereact with locals was poor too.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "Americans whilst fine people and brave soldiers did not have sufficient training and hence caused a high proportion of accidents."
As compared to what? I enjoy military history, though I don't consider myself to be beyond a hobbyist. I know of no military action of that scope that even comes close to having conducted with such precision. Every problem has three sides, the good, the bad, and the real. Context alone keeps things in the real.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"As compared to what?"
Erm .. as compared to other armed forces in the same area doing (with slight variations) the same job.
My brother used to run training courses for special forces. The US SEALs fell apart and aborted one training exercise that the SAS walked through with ease the week before. The US Rangers were demolished in a training exercise against standard (i.e. non special force) British infantry (my brother was in the unit).
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "as compared to other armed forces in the same area doing (with slight variations) the same job"
Too general. Produce historical conflicts of any significance that resulted in lower civilian casualties that demonstrated a trend on the part of the American military.
"The US SEALs fell apart and aborted one training exercise that the SAS walked through with ease the week before"
The military people I know have little respect for British forces, does that make them inept?
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"Too general. Produce historical conflicts of any significance that resulted in lower civilian casualties that demonstrated a trend on the part of the American military."
No body mentioned anything about civillian causualties.
"The military people I know have little respect for British forces, does that make them inept"
I suppose so, although I am not sure the military people you know would be pleased if you told them to their faces that they are inept.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska As I understand it, the British forces are best applied to guard duty and behind the lines reinforcements. If I remember correctly, the militarily insignificant Argentinian military wrecked havoc on the Brits. and the SAS stood down and refused to take missions or failed at missions.
Personally, I want to give you all over to the Muslims. I'm sick of having part of my paycheck go to defend Europeans who lack the intestinal fortitude to eject people who have knives at their throats.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"If I remember correctly, the militarily insignificant Argentinian military wrecked havoc on the Brits. "
ROFL!!!! Clearly you understand very little or simply remember very poorly. Read up on what happened and try to do that before posting next time.
"I'm sick of having part of my paycheck go to defend Europeans"
It is weird how spineless some of the government is about that :-( A lot of them are into forgiveness and turning the other cheek etc.
JanJiska 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska --You can't count war for either side--
"I can and do."
There is a reason why scholars don't though.
For instance, if someone comes in my house at night and I kill him, that is self-defense. If I kill my family, that is murder. Blurring these distinctions is exactly what causes infanticide, the treating of a newborn baby as an intruder. Civilization has been built up by rejecting such destructions of distinctions.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"Blurring these distinctions is exactly what causes infanticide"
Maybe, however this does not really change the fact that many people died in holy wars does it?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "Maybe, however this does not really change the fact that many people died in holy wars does it?"
Nor does it change the fact that I had a flat tire last month? I'm not sure how you got there. How about, I don't believe in holy wars, I consider all wars to be for the purpose of taking ground or defending ground. Nothing in my military history reading suggests otherwise. However, internal slaughter is a completely different point.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"I consider all wars to be for the purpose of taking ground or defending ground. Nothing in my military history reading suggests otherwise"
You need to read more about military history then! Start with the Hussite Wars.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska cont...Wars are not the same as social genocide by despots. Social genocide is the hallmark of Atheist cultures, it is a definitive quality since it is so pervasive, literally, all Atheist cultures commit some form of genocide. In Wester culture, for instance, there is a genocide being practiced upon people with Down's Syndrome.
As a practical fact, you (or any Atheist) cannot make the statement you made since you would be un-defining an Atheist quality, a despotic act.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"...you would be un-defining an Atheist quality, a despotic act"
There is only one atheistic quality and that is not believing in a god. Anything you add on is the paranioa fallacy.
"Social genocide is the hallmark of Atheist cultures"
Only atheistic cultures? Wasn't Hitler a Catholic? The Aztecs were theistic and so on. This is just the paranoia fallacy again.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "only one atheistic quality..that is not believing in a god"
This would only be true if I hadn't demonstrated several behaviors that have at least a bell curve commonality across the Atheist spectrum. But, I have sufficiently demonstrated this.
"Wasn't Hitler a Catholic?"
No, Hitler was a Socialist/Atheist. His Socialism though roughly compares to Pol Pot's Communism. He was going to exterminate all Christians.
"The Aztecs were theistic"
They pruned subjugated peoples.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"This would only be true if I hadn't demonstrated several behaviors that have at least a bell curve commonality across the Atheist spectrum"
No it is just true. Any attempt to use the paranoia fallacy to show otherwise at best shows people being people regardless of whether they believe in supernatural creatures.
"No, Hitler was a Socialist/Atheist" "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." - Adolf Hitler
"They pruned subjugated peoples"
So you agree
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska }"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"
"I didn't lie." Richard Nixon. You are in a sad state when the proof of your claims depend upon the testimony of politicians, heh. Historical records demonstrate Hitler's non-Christian status.
"So you agree"
The Aztecs pruned subjugated people and in so doing militarily kept them from being able to mount a resistance. Another way of doing this is forced tribute. Compare this to the Minotaur legend.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow
(cont)
the 809 million does not include the approx 25 million that God personally killed in the bible.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"Atheism in no way elevates mankind"
It elevates it above believing in imaginary friends.
"It is the religion of drunkards, prostitutes, and homosexuals."
Unlike the church where alcohol and sexual perversion is unknown of course!?!?!
If atheism is my religion then I guess not collecting stamps must be my hobby?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "It elevates it above believing in imaginary friends."
Can you prove this is a good thing? Note: In so doing you risk proving imagination to be a bad thing, a known habit of Atheistic cults.
"Unlike the church where alcohol and sexual..."
You are confusing probability distribution with consequences of intent, ergo. a variation of the Nirvana fallacy.
The "Atheism is only non-beliefe" is a habit. It is an Orwellian obfuscation, or more accurately, an Alinsky tactic.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"Can you prove this is a good thing"
Irrelevant. Imaginary friends are not real, that was my point.
"You are confusing probability distribution with consequences of intent"
No, just showing that people are people and have the same vices whether they believe in supernatural creatures or not.
"It is an Orwellian obfuscation, or more accurately, an Alinsky tactic."
Paranoid rubbish. The only difference between most theists and atheists is atheists believe in one fewer god.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "Irrelevant. Imaginary friends"
I'm guessing you forgot the original thrust of this.
"No, just showing that people"
Nope, you're asserting that if 1 priests molests and 15 teachers molest, it is the same thing since both groups include molesters. I call equivocation.
"The only difference"
That's an Atheist truth, "The universe is one, complete, and indistinguishable in its parts." Theist truth is that everyone is unique. Your truth is likely unknown to you, that's all.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"I'm guessing you forgot the original thrust of this."
Nope, I think you just missed with it.
"Nope, you're asserting that if 1 priests molests and 15 teachers molest, it is the same thing since both groups include molesters"
Nope, please try again.
"Your truth is likely unknown to you, that's all."
Yes because there is no one atheistic truth!
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "Nope, I think you just missed with it."
Sorry, not a failing of mine.
"Nope, please try again."
Hmm, no, I got it right the first time, as usual.
"Yes because there is no one atheistic truth!"
And magic is your friend. It amazes me how comfortable Atheists are at things just popping into existence, like truths, and logic, and reason.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"Hmm, no, I got it right the first time, as usual."
The arrogance trick again - yawn
"And magic is your friend"
You believe in magic and supernatural creatures, not me. That is more than goal post moving, that is trying to reverse the pitch!!!
"Atheists are at things just popping into existence"
Absolute rubbish. We just do not see enough proof to make us believe in imaginary supernatural creatures. Perhaps you should look up 'atheist' in a dictionary at some point?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "You believe in magic and supernatural creatures, not me."
This is far from the case. Atheism is based upon the presupposition that life, and if not life, all of reality, simply popped into existence. It is in this way a reckless remnant of pagan theology.
"Perhaps you should look up 'atheist' in a dictionary at some point?"
Hmm, no, I think I'm beyond a dictionary. out of curiosity, do you know where dictionary definitions come from?
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"Atheism is based upon the presupposition that life, and if not life, all of reality, simply popped into existence"
It is based upon no such thing. I have no idea how things came to exist. I simply have not seen enough evidence to make me believe in a supernatural creator - anything you build on that is the paranoia fallacy.
"Hmm, no, I think I'm beyond a dictionary"
I am not suprised you think that.
"do you know definitions come from"
Actually, no.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "I simply have not seen enough evidence"
That's agnosticism. It's like Deism in that both merely remove the problem one step, giving the 'believer' a place to hide from the resoundingly obvious fact that Atheism is flawed.
"Hmm, no, I think I'm beyond a dictionary"
I am not suprised you think that."
Of course you aren't. You have no idea what I'm getting at half the time and are developing a habit of taking the least effort. Dictionaries are for children. Any adult cont..
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"That's agnosticism"
Arguably, it is just a scale. I am as agnostic about any of the gods as I am about the pink unicorn, tooth fairy and boogeyman.
"have no idea what I'm getting at half the time"
I don't think you do either. The smokescreen trick has been exposed and therefore you seem to be resorting to insults.
"Dictionaries are for children"
I still use mine for looking up the long words you use and correcting my spelling (and scabble of course).
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "I am as agnostic about any of the gods as I am about the pink unicorn, tooth fairy and boogeyman."
You argument here resolves itself into a no-god argument, meaning, your examples are useless to the argument, they're distractions, not truth-building examples.
"don't think you do either"
The problem with that is that I've done this hundreds of times. You aren't unique. You are using sophistry in place of rational argument. Why? Because Atheism is in fact indefensible.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"You argument here resolves itself into a no-god argument"
Good , that was my point.
"The problem with that is that I've done this hundreds of times"
I can tell. You adopt the smokescreen trick and when this does not intimidate your opponent , the arrogance trick all based on the paranoia fallacy and throwing in the kettle fallacy when it suits you.
JanJiska 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska "Good , that was my point"
That isn't a point, it is an opinion.
"I can tell. You adopt the smokescreen trick and when this does not intimidate your opponent , the arrogance trick all based on the paranoia fallacy and throwing in the kettle fallacy when it suits you."
If that is the way you wish to see it, so be it. It is scarcely proof to apply a label without supporting argument.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska " still use mine for looking up the long words you use and correcting my spelling (and scabble of course)."
I too use a dictionary, for words I don't know. We are all children in some way and to some degree. But, words have structures, like automobiles, and contextual variations, and such. There is much more to a word than the dictionary can contain.
yedrow 1 year ago
@JanJiska cont... should have at least a basic understanding of etymology, linguists, and conventions. Dictionaries give general usage but are far from accurate and aren't necessarily intended to be accurate so much as they are intended to unify a language, an impossible task. Nuance and context often have more to do with the meaning of a word than its dictionary analog reveals.
yedrow 1 year ago
@JanJiska cont... Thus, I can compare a snake to a tree branch since there are connective qualities. I can even compare a photon to a brick, though the connections are very few. But I cannot compare anything in the universe to the proto-singularity that was the universe prior to time. There is no analogue but...drumroll...God. Russell committed the classic Atheist canard. He proved a point by separating it from its context. In other words, he lied.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"There is no analogue but...drumroll...God. "
Are you saying that there is a gap in our scientific knowledge you are claiming that you God is in that gap? I am sure there is a name for that type of argument ...
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Fine, I say the Singularity of the gaps and you say the God of the gaps.
I think you are fishing with a semantical fallacy.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"Fine, I say the Singularity of the gaps and you say the God of the gaps."
Fair enough - it is the same thing,
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "Fair enough - it is the same thing,"
I can accept that. I however will note that there is a problem in that this isn't a gap, it is the edge of a cliff.
I still consider the terminology misleading on two points.
1) Gap configures the concept into a parallel with an Atheist argument device.
2) Gap then associates Christian argument with a negative, lending a more credibility to the Atheistic argument by default..
This is method and is more akin to sophistry than reason.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"I can accept that. I however will note that there is a problem in that this isn't a gap, it is the edge of a cliff"
It is a gap, paint it how you want. There is a gap in our scientific knowledge on this subject and you are filling it with your god.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska A gap has two sides. This is origins, a unity concept, whatever it is, there is no gap. You are playing onomastic gymnastics.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"A gap has two sides. This is origins, a unity concept, whatever it is, there is no gap"
This is just word play. As said previously there is a gap in our scientific knowledge which you are filling with your god. Like when the Aztecs thought that their god caused the sun to rise because they could not imagine another way it could happen. Your attempts to obfusciate this point, whilst impressive, are empty.
JanJiska 1 year ago
"A gap has two sides. This is origins, a unity concept, whatever it is, there is no gap"
"This is just word play."
Actually it is an intuitive response. I can't see how it is possible to know anything beyond the singularity. Thus, I find God to be more consistent with a logical mind. You are using a devise to categorize a very simple statement into a thing it isn't. Being a simple statement, it is also an obvious statement. I believe. There's nothing on the other side of that.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"I can't see how it is possible to know anything beyond the singularity."
Ah, so there is a gap in our scientific knowledge there. What do you think we can fill it with?
"Thus, I find God to be more consistent with a logical mind"
Ah, your God of course.
This would be a god of the gaps argument then. I am going to have to create a shortcut for this I am wearing keys out continually retyping it.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska But Russell doesn't do this. He instead deceives the audience with a clever ruse, a distraction. Why? Because it is absurd to attempt to argue that God doesn't exist. Russell removes the problem a step or two and pretends he has bested an opposing religions system. This is, basically, the same problem as the spacemen seeding the earth. If so, then who seeded the spacemen's planets. And, it ultimately is the same problem that evades Atheistic explanations of the origin of the universe.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"Atheistic explanations of the origin of the universe."
Indeed. We do not know how the universe originated, there are top minds working on it but it is a very difficult question to answer.
The fact that you try to fill this gap in science with your God is, once again, showing your position to be a 'God of the gaps' argument - QED.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Okay, read this close, I'm filling no gaps. I know exactly what you mean. There is no confusion on my part in any way and I'll be happy to discuss the subject in detail if that is what it takes to rip this red herring form your hands.
There is a paradox for both sides. Don't be a fanatic. I can suffer my side of the paradox without declaring perfect a man made activity operated upon by a flawed organ. Why can't you? Would it shake your beliefs too much?
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
" I'm filling no gaps"
Science does not know what created the universe (a gap in our knowledge) - you are placing your god there (a god in the gaps). This is called a God of the gaps argument. I cannot make it any simpler.
"There is a paradox for both sides"
No there is not. I have no preconceived ideas for reality to clash with, unlike a theist. What is discovered is discovered if it is a god I will worship it.
"Would it shake your beliefs too much?"
No beliefs to shake,
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska So, if I say, hmm, I wonder what is in that box, and I guess tools, since it looks like a tool box, then I'm filling in the gaps? If that's the case, then 'gaps' has no meaning. Otherwise, I submit that speculation, even that of faith, has nothing to do with your crutch.
The 'God of the gaps' presumes a god caused a thing that cannot be sufficiently explained by science.
yedrow 1 year ago
@JanJiska I'm not explaining anything. I'm asserting that anything that existed prior to the BB perforce must have existed as a paradox since it must have existed in some infinite state. I choose to believe that a rational consciousness that mirrors our consciousness is the best explanation.
Either way, you didn't understand the problem. The problem is the demonstration of an incapacity of human thought, not a flaw in the universe. You think man is god and that there is no flaw.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"I am asserting that anything that existed prior to the BB perforce must have existed as a paradox since it must have existed in some infinite state."
Who knows? The world's best minds have not figured that out yet and they know far more than you do about it. Lets not get ahead of ourselves.
"I choose to believe that a rational consciousness..."
And I choose to wait for the facts.
"You think man is god and that there is no flaw."
What? I do not think that at all!
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "The world's best minds have not figured that out..."
I don't have one of the world's best minds, and I don't blindly trust people in power anyway. I do have my mind. and I've been thinking about this for years and cannot come to any other conclusion but that a singularity such as the universe, would be dimensionless.
As well, how do you know they know more than me about it? Isn't that a belief of yours? Considering you don't know me at all?
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"As well, how do you know they know more than me about it? "
Statistics. There are few people who know more than the world's top minds about things and it is unlikely they would be talking like you do on YouTube.
"Considering you don't know me at all?"
How do you know that? We might well know each other and simply not recognise each other's handles.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "Statistics."
This is ad vericundium. Interestingly, you gave a positive comment of my admission of belief. But, when challenged, you refuse to admit your belief (the whole point of the challenge). Suggesting instead that Atheists are the least skeptical of the skeptics.
"How do you know that?"
Statistics.
Actually, you could know me, I get a lot of traffic.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"This is ad vericundium"
No, it is me assuming that you are not one of the world's leading scientists because the odds are against it. I might be wrong.
"But, when challenged, you refuse to admit your belief "
What belief? Atheists do not believe in a god, that is it there is no other shared belief.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska cont...kill at leisure. This is a very difficult problem. I really don't expect you to understand it since Atheism appears to destroy the individual's capacity to understand such things, hence, the genocides of the great Atheistic cultures. I do man no insult, btw.
Once you grant an institution absolute understanding, you imbue that institution with absolute authority. But, imperfect humans run institutions. Hence, if science is infinite in understanding, potential or cont...
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"This is a very difficult problem"
I think the problem that you have tripped over is the fact that the greater the claim the greater the burden of proof. If I told you I had eggs for breakfast you might just take my word as proof. If I told you that I had eggs with Brad Pitt you might find that less likely unless I could provide additional proof.
"genocides of the great Atheistic cultures"
Ah yes. The many crusades\terror attacks\holy wars etc in the name of atheism.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska cont...I say this since war conflicts with a spiritual life. In any event, Atheists killed more by orders of magnitude. At best your argument will end up being a Nirvana fallacy.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"Atheists killed more by orders of magnitude"
More than God? I think he specifies killing 2,476,633 people in the bible. The total is more like 24,644,205 when everything is counted.
Please let me know these atheist killings, I will be interested in the reading up on them.
At the moment your arguement does not even make it to being a Nirvana fallacy, it stumbles at simply being wrong as far as I can see. Please correct me.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "More than God?"
This is an argument to the proof of god and in this case is a red herring. We can explore that argument if you wish, but I don't think either of us will manage well.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ton Duc Thang, etc, the list is long. Add to that abortion and the horrors of partial birth abortion. Then, the press to euthanasia (a means by which younger people get mom killed and quick inheritance).
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"This is an argument to the proof of god and in this case is a red herring"
No, it is a comparison to the amount of people killed by atheists and by your God. You disprove of people killing people but do not mind when your God does it?
Your argument is flawed anyway. You are confusing things done by atheists with things done because of atheism. This is nonsensical. It is like combining all people who do not like golf under one (non golfing) umbrella.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "I might be wrong."
I tend to prefer to offer my arguments and cross examination against the same from my opponent and let the chips fall where they may. Information is diluted by belief and both sides of this have more than enough blind belief in play.
Belief means: Accepting a thing without knowing it with empirical certainty. The distance from certainty equals the level of belief. Arguing that you don't have beliefs that are consequential to Atheism is begging the question.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"Arguing that you don't have beliefs that are consequential to Atheism is begging the question."
I would say not. I simply do not believe there is a god. If someone can prove there is I am all ears because I want to know. There is not question begging any more so than me not believing aliens are abducting people is.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska You are saying that you are an Atheist and you don't have beliefs because Atheists don't have beliefs, that is begging the question as clearly as it can be.
yedrow 1 year ago
@yedrow,
"You are saying that you are an Atheist and you don't have beliefs because Atheists don't have beliefs"
Atheists do not believe in a god, nothing more and nothing less. Seriously, this is not rocket science. You seem to be kicking up smoke and pretending there is something behind it.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska cont...The assertion that Atheism is a lack of beliefs is Tautological in the bad way since it is begging the question.
yedrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yedrow,
"Atheism is a lack of beliefs is Tautological in the bad way since it is begging the question."
It is not. It is merely a fact. Atheism means you do not believe in God - nothing more and nothing less. Please leave your strawmen in the fields.