Atheists: just as dogmatic as the rest of them

[xzerohourx]

Originally Posted by JAGERBOY

Negged

Originally Posted by Steak_n_Taters

Repped.

Negged.

[OntarioGuy]

From freethoughtpedia.com some of the Top Ten Arguments for the existence of God:

10. Shifting the Burden of Proof
a.k.a. You can't prove God doesn't exist, False criteria fallacy, fallacy of questionable criteria

Premise:

I know God exists. If you disagree, prove otherwise. Oh you say you can't prove God doesn't exist? That's because you know he does!

Critique:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is the way the real world and science work. When you say God exists, you are making an extraordinary claim; therefore, the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim. A position that God doesn't exist is not a "belief," it's the standard position we all start out with until we're indoctrinated into religious schools of thought. People aren't born believing in Jesus. They start out atheist: lacking belief. There is no counter-claim necessary. Nobody has to prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist either.

Furthermore, it's technically impossible to prove a negative of this nature. I can no easier prove God doesn't exist than you can disprove my claim that I have an invisible, ethereal unicorn in the trunk of my car. I say I do. It's not my fault he disappears when you look there. Prove he isn't there. You can't.
A famous counter-spin on this argument is the Russell's teapot claim. How do you know there isn't a magical teapot hovering around earth that is responsible for creation? Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

4. Argument from Personal Experience
a.k.a. I feel the presence of God - I know he's real, Naked assertion

Premise:

I know god exists because I can feel him. I know it in my heart; he talks to me; I feel his strength and existence flow through every fiber of my being.
Critique:

The problem with the Argument from Personal Experience is that it's personal. Whatever you feel is not something that anyone else can feel. Therefore it is meaningless and inconclusive. I can find somebody who thinks he saw Elvis in Starbucks last week. That doesn't mean Elvis is alive. It means he was deluded. Any claim that cannot be tested or subjected to some sort of independent verification is not a meaningful, legitimate claim. I have no doubt you feel the presence of god, but this can also be explained rationally from a psychological perspective via various concepts such as the power of suggestion, lucid dreaming, hallucinations, mental disorders, etc. Personal "feelings" are not evidential.

3. Argument from Improbability
a.k.a. What are the odds of human beings existing?, Anthropic Principle, Existence defies entropy, Humans are too perfect to have been accidentally created, Special pleading.

Premise:

The second law of thermodynamics says matter inevitably becomes entropic (spreads out in chaos) and this defies the observation on Earth where we see, things becoming more organized. Therefore God is responsible.
What is the likelihood that humans would have turned out the way they have? It's improbable that humanity (or any other impressive life form) arbitrarily came into existence.
Imagine a wind whipping through a warehouse of airplane parts and blowing the pieces around until they form a perfect, functional 747 jet? That's what we are talking about in terms of the likelihood man "just happened" on Earth. A similar story involves monkeys being given typewriters and eventually writing all the works of Shakespeare.

Critique:

This argument works because those making these claims deliberately leave out a critical aspect of the story: No scientist ever said everything happens randomly or arbitrarily. How things evolve, change or become something new and different can be explained using processes such as Natural selection.
This argument ignores glaring facts in the equation. The second law of thermodynamics applies to a closed system, but the Earth is not a closed system. The entire universe is expanding and entropic. Theists ignore this fact. When employing the Argument from Improbability to the concept of evolution, theists also deliberately ignore the process of natural selection, which clearly demonstrates that the evolutionary process is anything but random and arbitrary. In any case, even if the Argument from Improbability were true, it wouldn't prove the existence of God. Theists also employ the Argument from Ignorance to arbitrarily suggest Godidit! whenever something appears they can't explain. The bottom line is that just because something seems impossibly unlikely to naturally occur, that does not mean it is impossible. In most cases, many of these "improbable" happenings do indeed have clear scientific explanations that theists conveniently ignore.

Another variation on the Argument from Improbability centers around talking about how "perfect" the Earth, our bodies, the universe, etc. is:
The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

Yes, if the Earth is so "perfect" how come the majority of it is covered with water and uninhabitable by humans? How come we weren't born with gills? If the universe is so perfect, why are there so many planets that are totally inhospitable to humans? Why doesn't the moon have an atmosphere? The "perfection" spin doesn't work.

2. Pascal's Wager
a.k.a. Better to believe and be right than not believe and be wrong, It doesn't hurt to believe in god and it's a safer bet, False dichotomy.

Premise:

French philosopher Blaise Pascal reasoned that it was a "safe bet" to believe in God just in case he was real. What's the harm? If you believe and he doesn't exist, you don't lose anything, but if you don't believe and he does exist, you lose big time.

Critique:

Most theists have reasoned that Pascal's Wager makes sense. The problem is, it is a fool's bet. If God is really omnipotent, then surely he knows that your beliefs are not sincere, that you're just playing the odds. Beyond that, Pascal's Wager does not address the more substantive question of which God you should believe in. Do you believe in Christ, or Xenu, Mithra, Saturn, Buddha, or Allah? What if God's real test was to see who would defy convention and refuse to believe and those were the ones who get to heaven? The permutations in this equation are endless, which proves that Pascal's Wager is a total waste of time. Like all the other arguments, theists will disagree, but only because they've manufactured their own set of rules that convinces them that their reasoning makes more sense. It doesn't though.

1. Argument from Design
a.k.a. Teleological argument, Every creation must have a creator., Intelligent Design, argument from complexity, Argument from final consequences, Special pleading, Ad-hoc reasoning.

This argument has been floating around ever since religion was invented, but the Argument from Design was perhaps perfected by C.S. Lewis in his book, "Mere Christianity". Lewis' great writing style made this fallacious argument seem almost legitimate.

Premise:

The most common analogy used to illustrated the Argument from design is the "watchmaker argument". If you found a watch on the ground, you never met the watchmaker, but you know from its design, the beauty of it; the way each piece was intricately designed to work together, that this watch had a creator.
Theists point to the human body; the precise way each of our organs work with each other and claim it's the most amazing "creation" of all, and surely there was some sort of creator behind it.

Critique:

This most famous argument for God is also the easiest to completely deflate. If anything sufficiently complicated must have a creator, then who created God? It's as simple as that. However, when you point out this flaw in theist logic, they commit another logical fallacy: special pleading to claim that God is the exception to the rule and doesn't need to have a creator.
Furthermore, every example to date a theist can make to suggest that humans are too complex to have "happened by accident" (another false claim) has been debunked by scientists. The famous Dover trial put the argument from design on trial and the theists failed miserably to prove their case.

[Tyr616]

you have been hit by a wall of regurgitated text for 5,000 damage.

[ONtop888]

Originally Posted by Tyr616

you have been hit by a wall of regurgitated text for 5,000 damage.

lulz

[drpurple]

Originally Posted by Tyr616

you have been hit by a wall of regurgitated text for 5,000 damage.

jesus saves! the rest of you take full damage

[booshnoogs]

The odd thing here, is God does prove his existing regularly. It's not uncommon for people to be healed of disease through prayer, for example.

Doctors will admit things like "We have no medical explanation for this stage 4 cancer having gone into spontaneous remission."

People who refuse to acknowledge God will chalk it up to "the power of positive thinking".

Somebody with a truly open mind, who is being intellectually honest, would at least have to admit that their *might* be a higher power involved though.

[tenthirtytwo]

Originally Posted by booshnoogs

The odd thing here, is God does prove his existing regularly. It's not uncommon for people to be healed of disease through prayer, for example.

Doctors will admit things like "We have no medical explanation for this stage 4 cancer having gone into spontaneous remission."

People who refuse to acknowledge God will chalk it up to "the power of positive thinking".

Somebody with a truly open mind, who is being intellectually honest, would at least have to admit that their *might* be a higher power involved though.

It's not uncommon for people being prayed for to die suffering either. Did God take a personal holiday?

In before "mysterious will of God" or "master plan" gets mentioned.

[xzerohourx]

Originally Posted by booshnoogs

The odd thing here, is God does prove his existing regularly. It's not uncommon for people to be healed of disease through prayer, for example.

Doctors will admit things like "We have no medical explanation for this stage 4 cancer having gone into spontaneous remission."

People who refuse to acknowledge God will chalk it up to "the power of positive thinking".

Somebody with a truly open mind, who is being intellectually honest, would at least have to admit that their *might* be a higher power involved though.

Sure, and it might be Zeus or Buddha or Xenu.


But no, for someone to attribute something like that to some fairy-tale is absurd. THat's for children playing pretend, not for adults.

[booshnoogs]

Originally Posted by xzerohourx

But no, for someone to attribute something like that to some fairy-tale is absurd. THat's for children playing pretend, not for adults.

So God is just a series of coincidences then, in your opinion?

[El Gilbro]

Originally Posted by hooked4life

you did say it was 'setting up rules so your side could never lose.' if saying 'give me one good reason, in your own words' is an automatic win for one side.

that's a really bad sign.

also, still waiting for the gaping holes in evolution.

One poster said that "it's easy to win an argument when you make the rules", or something along those lines, to another poster. I simply pointed out that that's how these arguments almost always end up. Each side makes their own rules that proves there point and ignores the other sides parameters that they are working in. (The "free will" argument is a great example of this. Everybody comes to the table with their own definition of "free will" and their arguments are completely correct within their own definition...but if you're arguing with somebody that has a different definition of "free will, you just end up going in circles.)

I never commented on either side's position or said which poster was defining the argument to suit him. In all honesty, I don't even know what exactly they were arguing about. I was just stating an observation.

[xzerohourx]

Originally Posted by booshnoogs

So God is just a series of coincidences then, in your opinion?

No...I'm saying there is no god.

[Mr Beer]

Originally Posted by booshnoogs

So God is just a series of coincidences then, in your opinion?

So a series of coincidences is God then, in your opinion?

[booshnoogs]

Originally Posted by Mr Beer

So a series of coincidences is God then, in your opinion?

Exactly. I meant that the terms could be used interchangeably (if awkwardly).

[Tyr616]

Originally Posted by xzerohourx

No...I'm saying there is no god.

lol banned

[hooked4life]

Originally Posted by El Gilbro

One poster said that "it's easy to win an argument when you make the rules", or something along those lines, to another poster. I simply pointed out that that's how these arguments almost always end up. Each side makes their own rules that proves there point and ignores the other sides parameters that they are working in. (The "free will" argument is a great example of this. Everybody comes to the table with their own definition of "free will" and their arguments are completely correct within their own definition...but if you're arguing with somebody that has a different definition of "free will, you just end up going in circles.)

I never commented on either side's position or said which poster was defining the argument to suit him. In all honesty, I don't even know what exactly they were arguing about. I was just stating an observation.

the meaning of your message may have gotten mixed up by me/you/both. if so apologies for my part in the confusion.

not directed at you.

standard 'burden of proof' that people in this forum use is standard for a reason. it's been a rule of debate long before christ was even supposedly born. the old dead greek dudes used it. it's a rule for a good reason.

'say it in your own words' - is a pretty reasonable request. if your belief can't go past a you0tube preacher or a creationist website with a cartoon dog holding a sledgehammer you might want to rethink some things. i'm not saying you have to give up your faith, but you might want to understand some more before you go around telling people.

honestly, didn't we all get taught in like 2nd grade 'say it in your own words.'

[hooked4life]

Originally Posted by booshnoogs

The odd thing here, is God does prove his existing regularly. It's not uncommon for people to be healed of disease through prayer, for example.

Doctors will admit things like "We have no medical explanation for this stage 4 cancer having gone into spontaneous remission."

People who refuse to acknowledge God will chalk it up to "the power of positive thinking".

Somebody with a truly open mind, who is being intellectually honest, would at least have to admit that their *might* be a higher power involved though.

the world is full of things we don't fully understand. saying anything we don't understand is the will of the divine gets us nowhere. go back 1000 years and lots of stuff was explained away as the will of god when, now, we could say exactly why it happened.

having said that is IS possible a god is at work, just like any other possibility. it certainly isn't proof one. and it defiantly isn't proof of any specific god.

[PBJTime]

Originally Posted by tenthirtytwo

Still waiting for that one fact that blows a hole in evolutionary theory.

Keep waiting. This is even more reason not to debate this with you. You appear to be unable to understand the simplest of ideas. I said I was done debating this issue in this thread, period. If you want to chalk that up as a win to stroke your e-peen, then by all means, feel free. I'm not a fan of hijacking threads.

[hooked4life]

Originally Posted by PBJTime

Keep waiting. This is even more reason not to debate this with you. You appear to be unable to understand the simplest of ideas. I said I was done debating this issue in this thread, period. If you want to chalk that up as a win to stroke your e-peen, then by all means, feel free. I'm not a fan of hijacking threads.

humor us. what are these simplest of ideas you speak of?

[PBJTime]

Originally Posted by tenthirtytwo

In other words, you have nothing.

You can back up your opinion with facts. Actually, it should be, and I encourage you to do so. What you CAN'T do is copy and paste bull**** from creationist propaganda websites.

If you call that "making up discussion rules", then I daresay you haven't been involved in any serious discussions. Not plagiarizing and backing up your assertions with fact are par for the course.

I'll break this down Barney style for you (I'm not debating the issue, but rather the methods.)

I grew up believing in evolution (after all, it was taught in schools). Eventually, I came to a point where I realize there were too many questions. I read enormous amounts of literature both for and against evolution and creationism. After reading so many theories, I was convinced more by creationism than by evolution. Many of the things that helped convince me are these same ideas that you forbid. You had to learn what you know. I know, I'll ask that you not post anything about evolution that I can find elsewhere, because that could be consider evolutionist propaganda. Sound fair? You are only allowed to post your very own thoughts, not any research that someone else has done or any findings by somebody else. There, now we're on a level playing field.

This is ridiculous, is it not? You're telling me that I am not supposed to back up any of my opinions with anything I've read or learned. We're not talking about blatant "copy and paste" here. I wouldn't do that, and for you to suggest otherwise when I've never given reason to is inflammatory, to say the least. However, anything I say is likely to be very similar to others who share my point of view. We all draw information from the same pool.

You daresay I haven't been involved in any serious discussions? How arrogant of you. You don't know the half.

[tenthirtytwo]

Originally Posted by PBJTime

Keep waiting. This is even more reason not to debate this with you. You appear to be unable to understand the simplest of ideas. I said I was done debating this issue in this thread, period. If you want to chalk that up as a win to stroke your e-peen, then by all means, feel free. I'm not a fan of hijacking threads.

Oh my bad, hold on I'll make a thread just for you to come in and debunk evolution for everyone!

[hooked4life]

really, just list off 2-3 glaring holes.

seriously, shouldn't be that hard.

[tenthirtytwo]

Originally Posted by tenthirtytwo

Oh my bad, hold on I'll make a thread just for you to come in and debunk evolution for everyone!

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=115348231

Hijacking no longer a problem! Come and dazzle the board!

[PBJTime]

Originally Posted by hooked4life

humor us. what are these simplest of ideas you speak of?

The simplest idea is the statement that, "I, PBJTime, am done debating this particular issue of evolution vs creationism in this thread." Should I bold and underline, or do you get the gist of what I'm saying? Why people keep prodding is beyond me.

This is pretty typical behavior though. Any amount of dissension or going against the status quo is usually quickly smothered. This isn't a knock on anybody, as it's been going on for millennia, but it is what happens.

It's not a bad tactic. After all, people will come out of the woodwork to pile on to the dissenter, overwhelming the person with questions, all the while knowing that person has neither the time nor resources to keep up.

Bravo, you have silenced me.

[_ATHEIST_]

Originally Posted by PBJTime

"I doubt you'll be back."

Really? What gave you that idea? The fact that I said I was done with this topic in this thread?

Yes, and the fact you do not seem to know the fossil record or anything about human evolution.

In any case, I've read some of the other threads and, honestly, we aren't covering any new ground here that hasn't been covered before. I could go on about the many ideas that appear to debunk evolution and I'm sure you guys could rattle off some pretty convincing stuff too (after all, our schools teach it as fact.) The fact is, I'm not discussing this any more in this thread. I'm not so sure what is so confusing about that statement.

So, you just came back to tell us that you are not coming back.

I may not discuss it any more as it appears that these degrade into increasingly negative posts, often with the person opposing evolution being labeled a troll. I have no interest in any of that crap. The only thing that perked my ears in this thread was the fact that some take to insulting others who differ from their opinion. So, in essence, keep your personal attacks to yourselves.

I don't see any personal attack in my comments. I don't know where you are getting this from.

Edi: If you ever want a good discussion on kinesiology, anatomy, or anything physical therapy related, then I'll be happy to discuss that. I will stay away from these because of the simple fact that some smacktards will neg anything they don't agree with. At least most people understand the thought process behind the rep system.

I'm glad you know so much about those subjects, but know little about evolution. You brought up evolution but now you want to talk about the subjects you just listed.

[PBJTime]

Originally Posted by GregariousWolf

This is learned behavior.

When someone makes sweeping statements against science in general and evolutionary theory in particular, without fail they are arguing against a straw-man theory that they have propped up for the purpose of knocking down. The don't know what the theory really says or how science really works, and just parrot things other people have said such as "the second law of thermodynamics doesn't allow evolution" or "things are too complex to have evolved" or "here, watch this youtube video".

Just once I'd like to hear someone say something like this:

"I believe the stories in the bible are true. I realize they are not scientific, but I have faith in the teachings of my religion. I do not feel the need call on scientific authority to justify my religious faith, and I realize that science teaches things contrary to my religion. I do not feel the need to oppose science though, because my religion satisfies my need for answers to unanswerable questions such as 'what is my purpose in life' and 'why should I make good moral choices". These are answers that science cannot supply."

I've heard people say this ALL the time. Are you ever around Christians? That's all they do. Many will even say these scientific theories are of Satan's doing.

By the way, not everybody is setting up straw men. Some just don't have the energy to go through the gauntlet again, only to have their words falling on deaf ears.

[PBJTime]

Originally Posted by _ATHEIST_

Yes, and the fact you do not seem to know the fossil record or anything about human evolution.

Wow, talk about starting off with a bang. Personal attack: Exhibit A. You honestly don't know what I know, but proclaim to know, all the while insinuating I'm ignorant.

So, you just came back to tell us that you are not coming back.

Try to keep up. I responded to the prodding. I've not debated "the topic" anymore. I believe that was what I said.

I don't see any personal attack in my comments. I don't know where you are getting this from.

Oh really? Did you overlook the many "you're a moron if you believe in God" comments? Or did I just make that up?
Here is just one example, but there are quite a few more: "Those are two different things. It IS stupid to believe in a god. It's rather childish and insane, quite frankly. I can understand why people would want to believe in such fantasies, I used to be religious and I understand the thought processes people go through."
Edit: And I don't believe I ever said you made those comments. Nice strawman though.


I'm glad you know so much about those subjects, but know little about evolution. You brought up evolution but now you want to talk about the subjects you just listed.

From the start, I realized that I had made a mistake bringing this subject and even stated as much in my next post. Again, claiming to know how much I know. Man, you guys really know how to attack, huh? It's a sign of weakness.

Enjoy.

[_ATHEIST_]

Originally Posted by PBJTime

Enjoy.

here is the post im talking about.

But there is an exponentially HUGE gap between the most advanced non-human primate and humans, don't you agree?

What is the huge gap? What specifically is the huge gap? Language?

There should be some existence of a closer relative. If we evolved from say, Neanderthals, then why would baboons (who are lower on the "evolutionary" tree) survive to this day while the "fittest" perished?

We didn't evolve from neanderthals, they were distant cousins. 500,000 years ago our relatives,specifically heidelbergensis; They showed advanced thought, such as hacking bones so they could store them later. This shows high cognitive thoughts. Back 40,000 years ago hominids show features of worship through using substances like okra. Okra is found in tribal cultures and they use them for ritual behaviours such as burial.

That goes directly against the foundation of this theory. And your "fact" is unproven. Why do you think so much money is still being spent on finding conclusive evidence?

I'm leaving this thread. See you in another if you want to continue this debate.

What's the problem? Evolution doesn't say it explains the "origin" but "how" it happened.

[PBJTime]

Originally Posted by _ATHEIST_

here is the post im talking about.



What is the huge gap? What specifically is the huge gap? Language?

We didn't evolve from neanderthals, they were disant cousins. 500,000 years ago our relatives,specifically heidelbergensis; They showed advanced thought, such as hacking bones so they could store them later. This shows high cognitive thoughts. Back 40,000 years ago hominids show features of worship through using substances like okra. Okra is found in tribal cultures and they use them for ritual behaviours such as burial.

What's the problem? Evolution doesn't say it explains the "origin" but "how" it happened.

There is another thread, created especially for me, and your welcome to come visit it. I'm sure I'll be in and out of it all weekend. By the way, I appreciate the more civil tone and I'm not being facetious.

[_ATHEIST_]

Oh really? Did you overlook the many "you're a moron if you believe in God" comments? Or did I just make that up?

I didn't see it.

Here is just one example, but there are quite a few more: "Those are two different things. It IS stupid to believe in a god. It's rather childish and insane, quite frankly. I can understand why people would want to believe in such fantasies, I used to be religious and I understand the thought processes people go through."
Edit: And I don't believe I ever said you made those comments. Nice strawman though.

I didn't see, but you will see people do it all the time. I get it all the time, so get used to it.

Wow, talk about starting off with a bang. Personal attack: Exhibit A. You honestly don't know what I know, but proclaim to know, all the while insinuating I'm ignorant.
I just said from your statement it was wrong. Ignorant is not a personal attack.

Try to keep up. I responded to the prodding. I've not debated "the topic" anymore. I believe that was what I said.

OK. I don't see how being ignorant is a personal attack, but I'll let it be.

From the start, I realized that I had made a mistake bringing this subject and even stated as much in my next post. Again, claiming to know how much I know. Man, you guys really know how to attack, huh? It's a sign of weakness.

So you said I'm not attacking you, and now your saying I'm attacking you. ok?

[PBJTime]

Originally Posted by _ATHEIST_

I didn't see it.

So you said I'm not attacking you, and now your saying I'm attacking you. ok?

I was referring to your last post. It was more along the lines of meaningful debate than your previous posts.