Four Big Bangs That Kill Atheism

[zyzygy]

Has anyone provided proof of Neptune's inexistence? Not even close.

 

[zyzygy]

Who is this dishonest apologist?

David Berlinski makes an ass of himself defending intelligent design
I know of no critic of evolution—perhaps save the late William F. Buckley, Jr.—who is at once so eloquent and so ignorant as David Berlinski. The man has spent years attacking evolutionary biology and defending intelligent design (ID), and is, to my knowledge, the only living creationist who is not religious. (He claims to be an agnostic, though I have trouble believing that.) He’s also a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, a position reserved for only the Highest Poo-Bahs of Ignorance.

Yesterday, at the Discovery Institute’s News and Views site, Berlinski wrote “Majestic Ascent: Berlinski on Darwin on Trial,” a post apparently designed to fête the twentieth anniversary of Phillip Johnson’s execrable Darwin on Trial: the book that launched the ID movement. Johnson’s book is full of inaccuracies and lies (I use the word deliberately, because no honest scholar could make the claims that he did). And, sure enough, Berlinksi’s post is full of lies as well. I’m not going to analyze it in detail, but here are a few blatant misrepresentations.
David Berlinski makes an ass of himself defending intelligent design << Why Evolution Is True

 

[NWO_Spook]

Has anyone provided proof of Neptune's inexistence? Not even close.

That list of questions and answers was beyond contempt. The author is clearly not a scholar.

 

[RAMOSS]

“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

There are many piece of poor reasoning in that piece of opinion. First of all, it is doing what is known as 'shifting the burden of proof'. Next, it's assuming all scientists are not religious (that is known as 'painting with too broad a brush'. A third thing it is doing is being ambiguous about what needs to be disprove. What is meant by God. What are the properties of God?? Can you define God by what God is (as in what is God made of), rather than the actions that are attributed to God?

All and all , that was a piece of fluff, and not worthy of anybody I would consider scholarly.

 

[Angel]

Your biased opinion is noted.

Utter nonsense and obviously incorrect. Have you ever read or viewed any debates by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris inter alios?

Again, you are completely missing my point here: the origin is immaterial to the logical nature of the debate. It is not shallow or false and your accusations are clearly biased and unworthy of a true scholar of the subject. Misappropriation is utter nonsense in that the logical employment of the argument against the fallacy is recognised by scholars above our station.

Please stop focussing upon the immaterial nature of the origin and begin to address the logical nature of the contention. That is, that any argument that employs 'God' as an answer when we don not know the answer is fallacious and the origins or your opinion of those who employ this reasoning is completely immaterial.

Are you capable of discussing the subject as a student of philosophy, or are you merely an apologist masquerading as a philosophy student? If the latter is true, and I suspect it is, then I'll not waste any more of our time on this subject.

Your apologetics on behalf of Dopey Dick Dawkins & Company is noted as well. Or should that be "are noted," scholar?
Yes, please do "not waste any more of our time on this subject." Much obliged to you for this considerate proposal.
Peace out.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Your apologetics on behalf of Dopey Dick Dawkins & Company is noted as well. Or should that be "are noted," scholar?

'Are noted', as your subject and object are plural.

Yes, please do "not waste any more of our time on this subject." Much obliged to you for this considerate proposal.
Peace out.

Thanks for answering my questions. It appears that ad hominem is the limit of your capability in this subject, and you are merely an apologist masquerading as a student of philosophy.

 

[Peter King]

“Four Big Bangs” That Kill Atheism
October 15, 2018 Daniel Currier

In a recent conversation with an atheist, I challenged him with four major topics his worldview can’t explain. I remembered them by using Frank Pastore’s nice mental hook, the “four big bangs” that materialism can’t explain.
1. The “Cosmological Big Bang”
2. The “Biological Big Bang”
3. The “Psychological Big Bang”
4. The “Moral Big Bang”

:lamo This supposedly kills atheism :lamo

I could not give a crap about what caused any of those big bangs, except that there is zero logical or empirical data that fantasy deities were part of it.

And no religious person can "explain" these things either without their standard answer, god did it. Zero evidence, zero logic behind it, just their blind faith in a magic super power. And science cannot explain everything. They cannot travel in time and investigate what caused the big bang to take place, but neither can religious people. Religious people can claim they know things, but they do not other than accrediting a super being of doing it. And that is not an answer, that is making unprovable claims based on your religion.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Your biased opinion is noted.



Utter nonsense and obviously incorrect. Have you ever read or viewed any debates by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris inter alios?



Again, you are completely missing my point here: the origin is immaterial to the logical nature of the debate. It is not shallow or false and your accusations are clearly biased and unworthy of a true scholar of the subject. Misappropriation is utter nonsense in that the logical employment of the argument against the fallacy is recognised by scholars above our station.

Please stop focussing upon the immaterial nature of the origin and begin to address the logical nature of the contention. That is, that any argument that employs 'God' as an answer when we don not know the answer is fallacious and the origins or your opinion of those who employ this reasoning is completely immaterial.

Are you capable of discussing the subject as a student of philosophy, or are you merely an apologist masquerading as a philosophy student? If the latter is true, and I suspect it is, then I'll not waste any more of our time on this subject.

More just a Troll.

 

[zyzygy]

'Are noted', as your subject and object are plural.



Thanks for answering my questions. It appears that ad hominem is the limit of your capability in this subject, and you are merely an apologist masquerading as a student of philosophy.

Angel's knowledge of philosophy could be written on the back of a postage stamp.

 

[HonestJoe]

“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.

Has anyone provided a testable hypothesis for the existence of a specifically defined “God”?

 

[RAMOSS]

Has anyone provided a testable hypothesis for the existence of a specifically defined “God”?

Has anybody who defined a God define it enough to say that that God actually is first?

 

[Angel]

'Are noted', as your subject and object are plural.

Thanks for answering my questions. It appears that ad hominem is the limit of your capability in this subject, and you are merely an apologist masquerading as a student of philosophy.

You're welcome.
Know Thyself.

Angel's knowledge of philosophy could be written on the back of a postage stamp.

You're out of your depth, pilgrim.

 

[devildavid]

'Are noted', as your subject and object are plural.



Thanks for answering my questions. It appears that ad hominem is the limit of your capability in this subject, and you are merely an apologist masquerading as a student of philosophy.

Ad hominem is all he's got. Been there, done that.

 

[Angel]

Ad hominem is all he's got. Been there, done that.

"Ad hominem is all he's got," he said ad hominem.
Yes, you "been there, done that" and then some.
Have an interesting evening.

 

[devildavid]

"Ad hominem is all he's got," he said ad hominem.
Yes, you "been there, done that" and then some.
Have an interesting evening.

Pointing out ad hominem is not an ad hominem attack. If you wish to avoid the characterization stop indulging in ad hominem.

 

[NWO_Spook]

You're welcome.
Know Thyself.

I'm trying, and that is why I enjoy philosophical dialectic. However, fallacious reasoning and attacking sources, concepts and the ridicule of individuals is not philosophical discourse and I'd rather not bother with that sort of lowbrow conversation.

In your very first post, you attacked 'New Atheism', and those who posited valid arguments, then you sustained those attacks against a valid philosophical point and never once engaged in actual debate on that point. You then resorted to ridicule instead of demonstrating where and how I supposedly went wrong.

That is not debate.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Ad hominem is all he's got. Been there, done that.

Moi? :shrug:

 

[devildavid]

Moi? :shrug:

No, angel. You aren't the first to point this out. Welcome to the club.

 

[NWO_Spook]

No, angel. You aren't the first to point this out. Welcome to the club.

I see...my mistake.

 

[zyzygy]

I see...my mistake.

We know Angel of old. It's not worth your time.

 

[Angel]

I'm trying, and that is why I enjoy philosophical dialectic. However, fallacious reasoning and attacking sources, concepts and the ridicule of individuals is not philosophical discourse and I'd rather not bother with that sort of lowbrow conversation.

I couldn't agree with you more. That's why for the most part I steer clear of Beliefs & Skepticism.

If you're interested in philosophical discussion, you might check out these threads:
Epistemic Responsibility
The Philosophy of Spirit

In your very first post, you attacked 'New Atheism', and those who posited valid arguments, then you sustained those attacks against a valid philosophical point and never once actually engaged in actual debate on that point. You then resorted to ridicule instead of demonstrating where and how I supposedly went wrong.

That is not debate.

I'll investigate these allegations and respond in another post.

 

[Angel]

No, angel. You aren't the first to point this out. Welcome to the club.

We know Angel of old. It's not worth your time.

Your posts are shameless petty gossip and lies, one of the reasons I've given both of you the air, and if we include a couple other trolls, why I by and large have given up on B&S.

 

[Angel]

...
In your very first post, you attacked 'New Atheism', and those who posited valid arguments, then you sustained those attacks against a valid philosophical point and never once engaged in actual debate on that point. You then resorted to ridicule instead of demonstrating where and how I supposedly went wrong.

That is not debate.

I've looked into your allegations. Here is what I found:

This was my "very first post" at #14:

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang!

Wonderful thread, Wonderful.

This was my second post at #93:

I note that no one is addressing the "Four Big Bangs" of the OP, but instead the usual suspects resort to attacking Biblical literalism, which has nothing at all to do with the OP.

This was my third post at #103, replying to your post:

Why does the atheist have to answer the questions as posed in the OP? All atheism means is that one does not believe there is evidence for a god or gods, therefore he or she rejects the notion that one exists. Why does the atheist have to answer all these questions which are based upon a 'god of the gaps' argument anyway?

Because New Atheism has in its 20-year campaign of bigotry and religious intolerance tarnished the reputation of atheism, made it into a creepy vile thing that all rational men must needs despise.

This was my fourth post at #105, replying to your post:

That is a somewhat intolerant point of view (and a false generalisation) which doesn't adequately answer the questions.

Extremism elicits extremism.
The answer was that the OP is a sort of quid pro quo after twenty years of public harassment .
As to what New Atheism is:
New Atheists | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This was my fifth post at #110, replying to you:

That does not explain why an atheist should have to answer these questions based upon the definition I supplied. The OP is basically a 'god of the gaps' argument and therefore flawed. The argument, 'I don't know, therefore God' is a rationale every one should contest. The 'quid pro quo' claim is immaterial.

I also posit that this public harassment is exaggerated and insignificant when compared to the persecution of non-believers throughout history, and indeed to this very day in some parts of the world.

Thank you. So 'New Atheists' are whom I call 'thinkers'.

The "god of the gaps" shibboleth is a misappropriation of an early medieval theological argument for a fuller and deeper theism, a misappropriation by Dopey Dick Dawkins and the other gurus of New Atheism, which has been parroted by the duped minions of these arch assholes for the last twenty years.

You call New Atheists "thinkers"; whereas in my neighborhood they're called "douche-bags" -- that's what makes horse racing, as they say.

This was my sixth post at #115, replying to you:

Incorrect. It is a point of logic, and the arguments presented in the OP are classic examples. For instance, the Kalam Cosmological Argument: if the universe is based upon cause and effect, how did the big bang occur without being triggered, if so it must have been the product of deity (simplified) ~ this is just an elaborate 'god of the gaps' fallacy, which is basically an argument from ignorance.

That's hardly an erudite point of view and unworthy of debate.

Apologies for the harsh characterization of New Atheism; the harm it;s done in the world makes my blood boil.

As for the "god of the gaps" business, I was correct. Its origin lies with theologians, and New Atheism misappropriated and spun it into a straw man argument.

God of the gaps - Wikipedia

RESULTS
I cannot find the "valid points" I'm alleged to have attacked in my "very first post" or "those who posited valid arguments."
I cannot find.the "valid philosophical point" I'm alleged to have ignored.
"Ridicule" of Richard Dawkins and New Atheism I find, yes. Guilty. Just know that that "ridicule" is a mere shadow of what Richard Dawkins and New Atheism would get from me were I not constrained by the demands of civil discourse.

If you be so kind as to point out the "philosophical point" you refer to in your post, I would very much appreciate it and will most certainly engage it in my next post.

 

[Quag]

I've looked into your allegations. Here is what I found:

This was my "very first post" at #14:



This was my second post at #93:


This was my third post at #103, replying to your post:


This was my fourth post at #105, replying to your post:


This was my fifth post at #110, replying to you:


This was my sixth post at #115, replying to you:




RESULTS
I cannot find the "valid points" I'm alleged to have attacked in my "very first post" or "those who posited valid arguments."
I cannot find.the "valid philosophical point" I'm alleged to have ignored.
"Ridicule" of Richard Dawkins and New Atheism I find, yes. Guilty. Just know that that "ridicule" is a mere shadow of what Richard Dawkins and New Atheism would get from me were I not constrained by the demands of civil discourse.

If you be so kind as to point out the "philosophical point" you refer to in your post, I would very much appreciate it and will most certainly engage it in my next post.

Seriously you cannot see where you went off the rails?
Heres a hint look at your first reply to NWO

 

[devildavid]

Your posts are shameless petty gossip and lies, one of the reasons I've given both of you the air, and if we include a couple other trolls, why I by and large have given up on B&S.

And the ad hominem continues. You are consistent.