View Poll Results: See OP

Voters
100. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, because...

    22 22.00%
  • No, because...

    64 64.00%
  • Other

    14 14.00%
Page 83 of 87 FirstFirst ... 33738182838485 ... LastLast
Results 821 to 830 of 870

Thread: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

  1. #821
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-13 @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,932

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    That thought is what started my atheism.

    Which god are you talking about? How are you sure it exists?
    Watch the vid ;-)


    I'm quite familiar with Hitchens, as well as Harris and Dennett. I've read their books and know their arguments intimately.
    Your adversaries, obviously, have not.

  2. #822
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    The Crocoduck!

    Quote Originally Posted by Djoop View Post
    Watch the vid ;-)
    I've watched EVERY Hitchens debate and still haven't heard a valid argument for any deity. Please, tell me yours; you're a new face to me, I wanna see what you've got.

    EDIT: I'm shocked to find that I haven't seen that one. Watching... no wait I have seen this. But this video is ALL Hitchens, no argument FOR a god.

    Quote Originally Posted by Djoop View Post
    Your adversaries, obviously, have not.
    Its always the same 3 tricks from religious apologists:
    1. My religion is true because... (always fallacious, or based on false premises)
    2. My religion is useful because... (irrelevant to its truth value, placebo effect)
    3. And to bash atheists by projecting their religion's problems: try to paint them as faith based, historically immoral/oppressive etc...

    Few actually stray away from fallacies or straw men and engage what we truly believe, and think. It'd be nice to come across an honest and worthy adversary, who doesn't engage in misrepresentations and equivocations. Instead all I ever get is:


    All of that being said, it seems my adversary has fled, so here's all that has to be said about Free Will.
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 12-09-09 at 04:38 PM.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  3. #823
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-13 @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,932

    Re: The Crocoduck!

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    I've watched EVERY Hitchens debate and still haven't heard a valid argument for any deity. Please, tell me yours; you're a new face to me, I wanna see what you've got.

    EDIT: I'm shocked to find that I haven't seen that one. Watching... no wait I have seen this. But this is ALL Hitchens, no argument FOR a god.
    Get out of your debating mode! I said a metaphysical concept, I'm not a deist. Even if I would be of faith, I couldn't imagine picking one of the abrahamic faiths, I do have some morals.

  4. #824
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: How can I have been, before I ever posted? Learn how chronology works...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    Nonsense, how else would one know which god this person is claiming doesn't exist? Did anyone claim there was no Santa before he was thought up? Do you understand how a dismissal must chronologically follow a proposal?
    An Atheist states, without provocation: There is no God.
    There is no proposal to the contrary, implied or explicit, there is only his statement. The ONLY burden for anyone at this point is for the person making the claim to support that claim.

    Who believes that everything is created by the laws of physics?
    Some of those that argue there is no God.
    "Everything" is an all-encompassing word.

    And just how can one be deluded into thinking they have made a choice when they have not, neurologically speaking? Which part of the brain has been found to perform that task?
    Beats me. Doesnt change the fact that if you believe that -everything- is created by the laws of physics, then you are forced to agree with the idea there is no such thing as free will as --everything-- is already set in stone -- and so, to then deliberatly and willfully think that you -do- have free will is necessarily self-delusional.

    Well EVERYTHING isn't created by the laws of physics...
    If not the laws of physics, then what?
    And, really, its not MY argument that everything was created by the laws of physics - as I stated at the very very beginnigof this coversation I'm simply pointing out the implications of that position.

    If you want to argue that this position is false, that's fine, but you'll need to then tell that to those who DO believe that everything is created by the laws of physics.

    how can things pertaining to conscious beings be set in stone billions of years ago?
    Think of an infinite billiard table, with a huge number of balls.
    As soon as the cue breaks contact with the cue ball, the end position of every one of the other balls is pre-determined.
    Scale up as necessary.

    Nonsense, the existence of conscious beings contradicts that.
    It cannot. "Everything" is all-encompassing.

    What? Created "something"? A thought you mean, you had a "thought", electrical signals fired in your synapses, then you made a choice.
    No. You didn't. Those impulses are all governed by the laws of physics, and controlled by same. The conditions that existed at the moment of the firing of the impulse that then created said impulse are there not because of anything you did, but because of a huge number of interactions all set in place by the laws as they goverened the results from the initial pulse of the big bang.

    There is no choice, as choice creates something that is NOT created by the laws of physics, which is not possible if -everything- is created by the laws of physics.

    All of this is explained in the study of neurology. Where did you get the notion that everything was decided at the big bang? Which scientist do you attribute this theory to? Because its utter straw-man for the scientific consensus, and my position.
    Irrelevant to my point. Neurology is just chemistry, which is just physics.
    To argue that you have some control over your neruology means that you, not the laws of physics, is creating something, an impossibility if -everything- is created by the laws of physics.

    The laws of physics APPLY everywhere in the universe, but matter is not controlled by them.
    Everything is governed, controlled and acts according to the laws of physics. Everything. No exception.

    There are lots of physical laws, they are not a creative force... you're misunderstanding what they are and how they work.
    Sure they are. Up until the advent of man, its impossible to argue that -anything- was created by anything other than the laws of physics - specificlaly., how they govern the interaction between mass and energy.

    The sun? Created by gravity. The earth? Same.

    Nothing was determined at the big bang regarding conscious beings.
    Sure it was - as I said, 'everything' is all-encompassing.

    No, no it hasn't; Unless you can quote to me where you answered the following question: Do you or do you not agree that we have free will?
    I am not at all sure how you arent klar on this:

    If everything is created by the laws of physics, then there can be no free will as to choose to do something is to create something that was NOT ceated by the laws of physics.

  5. #825
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightdemon View Post
    Whatever makes you happy Goob. Thanks for the fun.
    Keep deluding yourself - you have my pity.

  6. #826
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    Is it or is it not your position? You've contradicted yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    An Atheist states, without provocation: There is no God. There is no proposal to the contrary, implied or explicit, there is only his statement
    Is this some kind of hypothetical straw-man?

    That is not inherently the atheist position, technically speaking a-theist means without belief. I for one do not believe in any god, for I am skeptical of all of the illogical claims made for EVERY man-made god.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The ONLY burden for anyone at this point is for the person making the claim to support that claim.
    If a person went around claiming "there is no god" without provocation, the more appropo response would be, "What do you mean by that? Man-made deities or deistic prime-movers of all kind possible conceptions? How do you know this?" Because a yes to those statements would imply that this person was claiming to know something that as far as we understand, they couldn't.

    However, if we are in a disagreement because you claim there is a god, and I am skeptical, the burden of proof is on you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Some of those that argue there is no God.
    "Everything" is an all-encompassing word.
    Not quite, you're equivocating again. When I say "I own everything in this room" I do not mean the air, the particles, US soil, the people I'm talking to, etc... The use of "everything" requires context.

    If you've ever heard someone say "everything was created @ the big bang" they meant the atoms/dark matter that eventually formed the galaxies, they did not mean that the laws of physics are a creative force that determine the future of said universe. In regard to the physical laws, they were set, not created, @ the big bang and if they were set otherwise we wouldn't be here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Beats me. Doesnt change the fact that if you believe that -everything- is created by the laws of physics, then you are forced to agree with the idea there is no such thing as free will as --everything-- is already set in stone -- and so, to then deliberatly and willfully think that you -do- have free will is necessarily self-delusional.
    So who are you arguing against then? Who has accepted your straw-man as their position that EVERYTHING is "created" by the laws of physics?

    I believe everything (matter and space-time) began @ the big bang, and behaves according to the laws of physics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If not the laws of physics, then what?
    The thought I have are CREATED in my head though volition, without a god at the source of this universe or determinism setting the @ the big bang.

    To regard "everything" as a creation is a misnomer, to regard it as all encompassing is an equivocation; "Everything" requires context. Do you want me to explain how the galaxy we evolved in formed according to the laws of physics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If you want to argue that this position is false, that's fine, but you'll need to then tell that to those who DO believe that everything is created by the laws of physics.
    I don't "need" to do anything, thats what it means to have free-will. Who are these people you allege make this claim?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Think of an infinite billiard table, with a huge number of balls.
    As soon as the cue breaks contact with the cue ball, the end position of every one of the other balls is pre-determined.
    Scale up as necessary.
    I understand determinism, I also understand it to be tripe. We are not mindless billiard balls. Man is a being of volitional consciousness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No. You didn't. Those impulses are all governed by the laws of physics, and controlled by same. The conditions that existed at the moment of the firing of the impulse that then created said impulse are there not because of anything you did, but because of a huge number of interactions all set in place by the laws as they goverened the results from the initial pulse of the big bang.
    I thought you regarded that argument as false, and not your own?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    There is no choice, as choice creates something that is NOT created by the laws of physics, which is not possible if -everything- is created by the laws of physics.
    You're confused again... There is choice, there is free will, man is a being of volitional consciousness, thought is not an automatic process, the connections of logic are not reached by instinct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    An Atheist states, without provocation: There is no God. There is no proposal to the contrary, implied or explicit, there is only his statement
    Is this some kind of hypothetical straw-man?

    That is not inherently the atheist position, technically speaking a-theist means without belief. I for one do not believe in any god.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The ONLY burden for anyone at this point is for the person making the claim to support that claim.
    If a person went around claiming "there is no god" without provocation, the more appropo response would be, "What do you mean by that? Man-made deities or deistic prime-movers of all kind possible conceptions? How do you know this?"

    Because a yes to those statements would imply that this person was claiming to know something that as far as we understand, they couldn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Some of those that argue there is no God.
    "Everything" is an all-encompassing word.
    Not quite, you're equivocating again. When I say "I own everything in this room" I do not mean the air, the particles, US soil, the people I'm talking to, etc...

    If you've ever heard someone say "everything was created @ the big bang" they meant the atoms/dark matter that eventually formed the galaxies. In regard to the physical laws, they were set, not created, @ the big bang and if they were set otherwise we wouldn't be here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Beats me. Doesnt change the fact that if you believe that -everything- is created by the laws of physics, then you are forced to agree with the idea there is no such thing as free will as --everything-- is already set in stone -- and so, to then deliberatly and willfully think that you -do- have free will is necessarily self-delusional.
    So who are you arguing against then? Who has accepted your straw-man as their position that EVERYTHING is "created" by the laws of physics?

    I believe everything (matter and space-time) began @ the big bang, and behaves according to the laws of physics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If not the laws of physics, then what?
    The thought I have are CREATED in my head though volition, without a god at the source of this universe or determinism setting the @ the big bang.

    To regard "everything" as a creation is a misnomer, to regard it as all encompassing is an equivocation; "Everything" requires context. Do you want me to explain how the galaxy we evolved in formed according to the laws of physics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If you want to argue that this position is false, that's fine, but you'll need to then tell that to those who DO believe that everything is created by the laws of physics.
    I don't "need" to do anything, thats what it means to have free-will. Who are these people you allege make this claim?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Think of an infinite billiard table, with a huge number of balls.
    As soon as the cue breaks contact with the cue ball, the end position of every one of the other balls is pre-determined.
    Scale up as necessary.
    I understand determinism, I also understand it to be tripe. We are not mindless billiard balls. Man is a being of volitional consciousness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No. You didn't. Those impulses are all governed by the laws of physics, and controlled by same. The conditions that existed at the moment of the firing of the impulse that then created said impulse are there not because of anything you did, but because of a huge number of interactions all set in place by the laws as they goverened the results from the initial pulse of the big bang.
    I thought you regarded that argument as false, and not your own?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Irrelevant to my point. Neurology is just chemistry, which is just physics.
    To argue that you have some control over your neruology means that you, not the laws of physics, is creating something, an impossibility if -everything- is created by the laws of physics.
    Chemistry is not just physics, our brain is a computer no matter what the circuits are made of, or how the data is sent. We are so much more than the sum of our parts, its sad to see such obvious cognitive dissonance combined with complete ignorance of the study of neurology.

    I have control over my thoughts and body, I can prove it; Can you prove otherwise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean
    The laws of physics APPLY everywhere in the universe, but matter is not controlled by them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Everything is governed, controlled and acts according to the laws of physics. Everything. No exception.
    So this blatant misunderstanding of what the laws of physics do IS your position? You do not believe that we have free will? I see...

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Sure they are. Up until the advent of man, its impossible to argue that -anything- was created by anything other than the laws of physics - specificlaly., how they govern the interaction between mass and energy.

    The sun? Created by gravity. The earth? Same.

    Sure it was - as I said, 'everything' is all-encompassing.

    I am not at all sure how you arent klar on this:

    If everything is created by the laws of physics, then there can be no free will as to choose to do something is to create something that was NOT ceated by the laws of physics.
    "Everything" is NOT created by the laws of physics, anyone who claims this (which you seem to be) misunderstands all terms used.
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 12-09-09 at 05:29 PM.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  7. #827
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    You knew it wasn't my position, so you're in contradiciton and I'm bored/hungry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    And, really, its not MY argument that everything was created by the laws of physics
    ---------------------
    Everything is governed, controlled and acts according to the laws of physics. Everything. No exception.
    You can see where I might be confused... If determinism is your position, then say so. Else, drop it because it isn't mine, nor is a godless universe deterministic according the the scientific consensus, nor is determinism inherent in the atheistic position.

    I highly suggest even a wikipedian education into Free Will, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurology"]Neurology[/ame] and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics"]Physics[/ame].

    Quote Originally Posted by Ayn Rand
    To think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call “human nature,” the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival—so that for you, who are a human being, the question “to be or not to be” is the question “to think or not to think.” “A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions.
    Don't forget to read up on [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism"]Determinism[/ame] because its utter tripe, that is proven false by the contradicting fact of our free will.
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 12-09-09 at 05:36 PM.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  8. #828
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    You can see why I was mislead

    Quote Originally Posted by Djoop View Post
    Get out of your debating mode! I said a metaphysical concept, I'm not a deist. Even if I would be of faith, I couldn't imagine picking one of the abrahamic faiths, I do have some morals.
    I wasn't in "Debate Mode" but I sure am now. This is what you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Djoop View Post
    Sure God exists, as a metaphysical concept, the question is do you believe the cultists who claim to know its will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    Which god are you talking about? How are you sure it exists?
    Quote Originally Posted by Djoop View Post
    Watch the vid ;-)
    I KNOW that the concept exists, hence the word "god." "Sure God exists" only in the same sense that EVERY CONCEPTION EVER exists. When you say that something exists metaphysically you're still making a truth claim about the universe.

    And when you ask the question about cultists claiming to know "its will" that further suggests that you were a believer. Then when in response to my asking "How are you sure it exists" you, tell me to watch a vid? Rather than, if you weren't a believer, correcting me at my first question as to your position?...

    You should have been clearer, your language was misleading.
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 12-09-09 at 05:45 PM.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  9. #829
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-13 @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,932

    Re: You can see why I was mislead

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    I wasn't in "Debate Mode" but I sure am now. This is what you said:



    I KNOW that the concept exists, hence the word "god." "Sure God exists" only in the same sense that EVERY CONCEPTION EVER exists.
    Thank god, you got it. That was also hitchens comment, in the vid I posted.

    When you say that something exists metaphysically you're still making a truth claim about the universe.

    And when you ask the question about cultists claiming to know "its will" that further suggests that you were a believer. Then when in response to my asking "How are you sure it exists" you, tell me to watch a vid? Rather than, if you weren't a believer, correcting me at my first question as to your position?...

    You should have been clearer, your language was misleading.
    Yes it had nothing to do with you failing to understand my initial comment, which only supported your position. I apologise, have a nice day.

  10. #830
    The Image b4 Transition
    Lightdemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    beneath the surface
    Last Seen
    05-31-12 @ 02:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,829

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Keep deluding yourself - you have my pity.
    I'm not the one who is delusional. Remember, you're the one asking for evidence of nothing. Like it or not, the burden of proof will always be on the side of the theist.
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Let the public school provide the basics, you as the parent can do the fine tuning.

Page 83 of 87 FirstFirst ... 33738182838485 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •