info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The debunking of atheistic Naturalism as a worldview . A circular lame excuse .
22 views
Skip to first unread message
ilbe...@gmail.com
Oct 30, 2011, 1:52:18 PM10/30/11
to
Naturalism is self-defeating. It is based on circular reasoning and
for many reasons it produces assumptions which are simply not in
agreement with common human experience. Therefore it is not
"true" (criterion #1 above). The scientific world-view presupposes
that the universe is ordered and essentially unchanging. It assumes
that the laws which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
universe is observable and understandable to human beings-that the
human mind has a one-to-one correspondence with the way reality is.
The naturalist then proceeds to apply these assumptions to rule out
all other world views. The spiritual or supernatural are, by
definition, not real. This is circular reasoning. None of the
assumptions made as the foundation of science can be proved by
experiment or by observation. In this sense, at its most
foundational
level, science itself is not scientific. It is not that the
discoveries of science are wrong. Not at all. Clearly science has
given us access to reliable knowledge about how the physical world
works. If limited to its proper sphere, science works. It is the
belief that science is the only valid view of the world and the only
legitimate means to acquire knowledge about reality which is based on
circular reasoning. At a recent forum held in the UK a famous
chemist/
naturalist was asked how he knows that ALL phenomena can be explained
by physical laws. After being re-asked a number of times and
attempting to get around the question, in the end, this naturalist
was
forced to confess; to quote "I simply believe it is true." In other
words, the reason the scientific materialist knows that "We exist as
material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the
consequences of material relations among material entities." is
because he or she assumes the conclusion before the investigation.
This is a very slim basis on which to build a world view.
There are a number of reasons I simply have to reject naturalism as
patently false. I will supply a brief list here without taking the
time to provide my evidence for such reasons. I will leave to reader
to decide the truth of these claims-each of which, if true, make
naturalism patently and demonstrably false.
1. Morality is real. Some activities are inherently wrong.
2. The existence of good and evil is not just an epiphenomenon. Evil
is real.
3. Justice is not just a concept. Some behaviors are just and some
are not just.
4. A human life is inherently more valuable than that of a
cockroach.
5. God exists.
6. The universe was created.
7. Life was created.
8. Beauty is real and not discoverable by any scientific means.
9. The Bible is inspired by God.
10. Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead.
This list can be made much longer. In the final analysis
the concepts of right and wrong are not just a human invention. I
have found that even those who claim that there is no right or wrong-
no evil or good-are not consistent with their own belief. It is
ironic to me that I have witnessed atheists expressing moral outrage
over the things done by "religionists." The naturalist may protest
it
is not true, but I say that "I" exist. I am not just a sack of
chemicals moving around, with nerve synapses firing off according to
patterns guided by my genetic makeup; determined by my environment.
I
am a person with a reality apart from my chemicals. Naturalism is
just plain not true.
Point number two of the argument for why naturalism is not a "good"
world view: It does not answer any of the questions or solve any of
the problems human beings really care about. Science is good at
answering questions such as When? How much? Where? How long? It
can answer provisional questions of why, such as why does it rain or
why do stars form, but it cannot answer any of the fundamental/
ontological/teleological why questions-even about the natural world.
For example, science is not helpful at all for answering such basic
questions as "Why is gravity as strong as it is," or "Why does the
electromagnetic force exist,?" or "Why does the universe exist?" If
science cannot answer these questions, it certainly cannot even hint
at an answer to a single one of the questions people really care
about
(as listed above) such as: "Why am I here?" "What is my purpose?"
"Does God exist?" "What happens to me when I die?" "How should I
act?" "How should I treat other people?" "Why is it possible for
humans to understand how the universe works?" "Why is there evil in
the world?" Bottom line, scientific materialism does not even give
wrong answers, it gives no answer at all to these questions (There is
one exception. Science provides offers an answer to the question
What
happens when I die? The "scientific" answer is that life simply ends
and entropy takes over.) It says that these are nonsense questions.
My experience tells me that ignoring important questions and
pretending that difficult problems do not exist is a bad way of
dealing with such questions and problems. I do not mean to imply
that
Naturalists do not ask these questions or that they do not on an
individual basis try to help solve some of the important human
problems. It is just that their world view is not at all helpful for
these things.
The third criterion from my personal list of qualities which make for
a "good" world view is that holding to this view of the world must
cause a person to be "better" than he or she would otherwise have
been
if not holding to this world view or if holding to alternative world
views. Admittedly, this criterion is fairly subjective, but there
are
a number of measurements of goodness to which virtually all humans
would subscribe. I believe that Naturalism is not a good world view
if judged by this criterion. Let me state before entering this area
that I have a number of friends who are Naturalists. This is only
"natural" because I am a scientist by profession. Some of my
scientific materialist acquaintances are rather arrogant and hold to
ethical and moral ideas with which I cannot agree. However, others
have strong ethics and are some of the nicest people I know. No
world
view has a corner on the goodness market, including the one I hold
to.
With this qualification in mind (and please do not forget it!), let us
consider the motivation for doing "good" under the Naturalist world
view. In theory, the Naturalist believes that there is no purpose to
life and no inherently correct morality. Even ethics is extremely
difficult or impossible to derive from this world view. Like I
already said, some materialists do good deeds. If so, it is probably
not because they are motivated out of their world view. Something
else must be operating here.
At the risk of offending some, I will make a bold statement here. I
believe that scientific materialism is potentially a dangerous world
view. According to this view, human beings have no definable value,
except as a source of genetic material for subsequent generations.
Of course, the vast majority of atheists are not violent people and
value human life, but there is no moral imperative against murder or
rape or robbery or any other of activities that the Christian and
other world views hold to be morally wrong. Where does one find the
moral compass? Any category of sexual behavior is acceptable as long
as no one is hurt. Lying may be advantageous to survival and
therefore "good."
A lot of evil has been done in the name of religion. Anyone who
denies this is not looking at history or is altogether denying the
existence of evil. The difference with the Christian world view
compared to that of Naturalism, however, is that a Christian who is
prejudiced or who lies or who wages war on another for reasons of
greed or power is violating his or her world view and is subject to
being shown to be doing wrong. There is accountability and justice
under the Christian world view. To the Christian there is an
imperative to help our fellow mankind. Jesus commanded that those
who
follow him must "Do to others what you would want them to do to you."
Such altruism flies is the face of Naturalism as a philosophy. In
the
Christian world view, as exemplified by its creator Jesus Christ and
as taught by its scriptures, there is a strong imperative to love
others, to be honest, to serve others, to shun violence, greed,
arrogance and so forth. Many Naturalists follow a strong and
admirable personal ethic, but what is the imperative toward these
"good" behaviors under the Scientific Materialist world view? If
there is one, I have not yet seen one, although some materialists
have
made the attempt.
Having admitted that much evil has been done by believers, let us
consider the small but significant number of societies which have
publicly avowed an atheist or an anti-God world view. Examples of
this sort which come to mind are France immediately after the French
Revolution, Communist Russia, Communist China, Cambodia under Pol Pot
and North Korea.[1] Inspection of this list of regimes speaks for
itself. In each of these societies individual souls were treated as
if they had little value, with tragic results. The empirical fact
that a societal commitment to belief in no God has such a poor record
in producing human good is not proof that it will never do so.
However, the track record is something we should not ignore.
What about justice and human rights? In the United States, many
subscribe to the idea that "We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men were created equal." Does this idea come from
scientific
inquiry? Based on their DNA, some are more fit than others. The
Christian ought to believe that all humans are infinitely valuable as
they are created in the image of God. I am happy to report that
almost none of the Naturalists I have met are racially prejudiced.
Hopefully the scientifically-inspired Eugenics movement in the early
twentieth century will remain an anomaly, but what is the inherent
source of human dignity and value if, as Huxley said, "man was made
flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents."?
To summarize, the committed Naturalist believes that the only truth in
the universe is that which can be discovered by the scientific
method-
through experiment and rational analysis of the information derived
from empirical evidence. This world view fails miserably at the
three
criteria proposed in this paper for deciding what world view is best.
Its support is circular and its conclusions are patently false. It
cannot answer the most important questions or solve the fundamental
problems that human beings care about. It does not, in and of
itself,
tend to cause those who hold to it to be "good." I believe that the
Christian world view is vastly superior to Materialism on all these
counts and, for that matter, on any other reasonable measure I have
seen of what makes for a good world view.
John Oakes
www.evidenceforchristianity.org
for many reasons it produces assumptions which are simply not in
agreement with common human experience. Therefore it is not
"true" (criterion #1 above). The scientific world-view presupposes
that the universe is ordered and essentially unchanging. It assumes
that the laws which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
universe is observable and understandable to human beings-that the
human mind has a one-to-one correspondence with the way reality is.
The naturalist then proceeds to apply these assumptions to rule out
all other world views. The spiritual or supernatural are, by
definition, not real. This is circular reasoning. None of the
assumptions made as the foundation of science can be proved by
experiment or by observation. In this sense, at its most
foundational
level, science itself is not scientific. It is not that the
discoveries of science are wrong. Not at all. Clearly science has
given us access to reliable knowledge about how the physical world
works. If limited to its proper sphere, science works. It is the
belief that science is the only valid view of the world and the only
legitimate means to acquire knowledge about reality which is based on
circular reasoning. At a recent forum held in the UK a famous
chemist/
naturalist was asked how he knows that ALL phenomena can be explained
by physical laws. After being re-asked a number of times and
attempting to get around the question, in the end, this naturalist
was
forced to confess; to quote "I simply believe it is true." In other
words, the reason the scientific materialist knows that "We exist as
material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the
consequences of material relations among material entities." is
because he or she assumes the conclusion before the investigation.
This is a very slim basis on which to build a world view.
There are a number of reasons I simply have to reject naturalism as
patently false. I will supply a brief list here without taking the
time to provide my evidence for such reasons. I will leave to reader
to decide the truth of these claims-each of which, if true, make
naturalism patently and demonstrably false.
1. Morality is real. Some activities are inherently wrong.
2. The existence of good and evil is not just an epiphenomenon. Evil
is real.
3. Justice is not just a concept. Some behaviors are just and some
are not just.
4. A human life is inherently more valuable than that of a
cockroach.
5. God exists.
6. The universe was created.
7. Life was created.
8. Beauty is real and not discoverable by any scientific means.
9. The Bible is inspired by God.
10. Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead.
This list can be made much longer. In the final analysis
the concepts of right and wrong are not just a human invention. I
have found that even those who claim that there is no right or wrong-
no evil or good-are not consistent with their own belief. It is
ironic to me that I have witnessed atheists expressing moral outrage
over the things done by "religionists." The naturalist may protest
it
is not true, but I say that "I" exist. I am not just a sack of
chemicals moving around, with nerve synapses firing off according to
patterns guided by my genetic makeup; determined by my environment.
I
am a person with a reality apart from my chemicals. Naturalism is
just plain not true.
Point number two of the argument for why naturalism is not a "good"
world view: It does not answer any of the questions or solve any of
the problems human beings really care about. Science is good at
answering questions such as When? How much? Where? How long? It
can answer provisional questions of why, such as why does it rain or
why do stars form, but it cannot answer any of the fundamental/
ontological/teleological why questions-even about the natural world.
For example, science is not helpful at all for answering such basic
questions as "Why is gravity as strong as it is," or "Why does the
electromagnetic force exist,?" or "Why does the universe exist?" If
science cannot answer these questions, it certainly cannot even hint
at an answer to a single one of the questions people really care
about
(as listed above) such as: "Why am I here?" "What is my purpose?"
"Does God exist?" "What happens to me when I die?" "How should I
act?" "How should I treat other people?" "Why is it possible for
humans to understand how the universe works?" "Why is there evil in
the world?" Bottom line, scientific materialism does not even give
wrong answers, it gives no answer at all to these questions (There is
one exception. Science provides offers an answer to the question
What
happens when I die? The "scientific" answer is that life simply ends
and entropy takes over.) It says that these are nonsense questions.
My experience tells me that ignoring important questions and
pretending that difficult problems do not exist is a bad way of
dealing with such questions and problems. I do not mean to imply
that
Naturalists do not ask these questions or that they do not on an
individual basis try to help solve some of the important human
problems. It is just that their world view is not at all helpful for
these things.
The third criterion from my personal list of qualities which make for
a "good" world view is that holding to this view of the world must
cause a person to be "better" than he or she would otherwise have
been
if not holding to this world view or if holding to alternative world
views. Admittedly, this criterion is fairly subjective, but there
are
a number of measurements of goodness to which virtually all humans
would subscribe. I believe that Naturalism is not a good world view
if judged by this criterion. Let me state before entering this area
that I have a number of friends who are Naturalists. This is only
"natural" because I am a scientist by profession. Some of my
scientific materialist acquaintances are rather arrogant and hold to
ethical and moral ideas with which I cannot agree. However, others
have strong ethics and are some of the nicest people I know. No
world
view has a corner on the goodness market, including the one I hold
to.
With this qualification in mind (and please do not forget it!), let us
consider the motivation for doing "good" under the Naturalist world
view. In theory, the Naturalist believes that there is no purpose to
life and no inherently correct morality. Even ethics is extremely
difficult or impossible to derive from this world view. Like I
already said, some materialists do good deeds. If so, it is probably
not because they are motivated out of their world view. Something
else must be operating here.
At the risk of offending some, I will make a bold statement here. I
believe that scientific materialism is potentially a dangerous world
view. According to this view, human beings have no definable value,
except as a source of genetic material for subsequent generations.
Of course, the vast majority of atheists are not violent people and
value human life, but there is no moral imperative against murder or
rape or robbery or any other of activities that the Christian and
other world views hold to be morally wrong. Where does one find the
moral compass? Any category of sexual behavior is acceptable as long
as no one is hurt. Lying may be advantageous to survival and
therefore "good."
A lot of evil has been done in the name of religion. Anyone who
denies this is not looking at history or is altogether denying the
existence of evil. The difference with the Christian world view
compared to that of Naturalism, however, is that a Christian who is
prejudiced or who lies or who wages war on another for reasons of
greed or power is violating his or her world view and is subject to
being shown to be doing wrong. There is accountability and justice
under the Christian world view. To the Christian there is an
imperative to help our fellow mankind. Jesus commanded that those
who
follow him must "Do to others what you would want them to do to you."
Such altruism flies is the face of Naturalism as a philosophy. In
the
Christian world view, as exemplified by its creator Jesus Christ and
as taught by its scriptures, there is a strong imperative to love
others, to be honest, to serve others, to shun violence, greed,
arrogance and so forth. Many Naturalists follow a strong and
admirable personal ethic, but what is the imperative toward these
"good" behaviors under the Scientific Materialist world view? If
there is one, I have not yet seen one, although some materialists
have
made the attempt.
Having admitted that much evil has been done by believers, let us
consider the small but significant number of societies which have
publicly avowed an atheist or an anti-God world view. Examples of
this sort which come to mind are France immediately after the French
Revolution, Communist Russia, Communist China, Cambodia under Pol Pot
and North Korea.[1] Inspection of this list of regimes speaks for
itself. In each of these societies individual souls were treated as
if they had little value, with tragic results. The empirical fact
that a societal commitment to belief in no God has such a poor record
in producing human good is not proof that it will never do so.
However, the track record is something we should not ignore.
What about justice and human rights? In the United States, many
subscribe to the idea that "We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men were created equal." Does this idea come from
scientific
inquiry? Based on their DNA, some are more fit than others. The
Christian ought to believe that all humans are infinitely valuable as
they are created in the image of God. I am happy to report that
almost none of the Naturalists I have met are racially prejudiced.
Hopefully the scientifically-inspired Eugenics movement in the early
twentieth century will remain an anomaly, but what is the inherent
source of human dignity and value if, as Huxley said, "man was made
flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents."?
To summarize, the committed Naturalist believes that the only truth in
the universe is that which can be discovered by the scientific
method-
through experiment and rational analysis of the information derived
from empirical evidence. This world view fails miserably at the
three
criteria proposed in this paper for deciding what world view is best.
Its support is circular and its conclusions are patently false. It
cannot answer the most important questions or solve the fundamental
problems that human beings care about. It does not, in and of
itself,
tend to cause those who hold to it to be "good." I believe that the
Christian world view is vastly superior to Materialism on all these
counts and, for that matter, on any other reasonable measure I have
seen of what makes for a good world view.
John Oakes
www.evidenceforchristianity.org
ken
Oct 30, 2011, 3:02:05 PM10/30/11
to
REPLY: And what if it once did involve homosexuality many years ago
when i was a godless heathen Randy ? Then what ? It wouldnt make me a
'hypocritical Bigot' now since i dont do it.
when i was a godless heathen Randy ? Then what ? It wouldnt make me a
'hypocritical Bigot' now since i dont do it.
Virgil
Oct 30, 2011, 4:34:31 PM10/30/11
to
In article
<46057775-29e4-4888...@q13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Naturalism is self-defeating.
Science based on something like your "naturalism" has been remarkably
successful at improving human lives.
> It is based on circular reasoning and
> for many reasons it produces assumptions which are simply not in
> agreement with common human experience. Therefore it is not
> "true" (criterion #1 above). The scientific world-view presupposes
> that the universe is ordered and essentially unchanging.
That particular hypothesis is not so much assumed as validated by
experience.
> It assumes
> that the laws which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
> universe is observable and understandable to human beings-that the
> human mind has a one-to-one correspondence with the way reality is.
That particular hypothesis is not so much assumed as validated by
experience.
> The naturalist then proceeds to apply these assumptions to rule out
> all other world views.
Any assumption that anyone wants to make which can be tested by
observing whether the way the world/universe works conforms to that
assumption or not is acceptable. Unfortunately, the assumptions that
theists make cannot be s tested.
> The spiritual or supernatural are, by
> definition, not real. This is circular reasoning.
It is that their assumptions cannot be tested against observations of
the 'real" world in the same was as scientific assumptions can be and
are, that makes them unscientific.
> None of the assumptions made as the foundation of science can be
> proved by experiment or by observation.
The successes of science in improving human life are enough to justify
its continuation.
> In this sense, at its most
> foundational
> level, science itself is not scientific. It is not that the
> discoveries of science are wrong. Not at all. Clearly science has
> given us access to reliable knowledge about how the physical world
> works. If limited to its proper sphere, science works. It is the
> belief that science is the only valid view of the world and the only
> legitimate means to acquire knowledge about reality which is based
> on circular reasoning.
It is certainly the most effective means of acquiring knowledge about
reality, as verified and validated by several centuries of experience.
> At a recent forum held in the UK a famous
> chemist/
> naturalist was asked how he knows that ALL phenomena can be explained
> by physical laws. After being re-asked a number of times and
> attempting to get around the question, in the end, this naturalist
> was
> forced to confess; to quote "I simply believe it is true." In other
> words, the reason the scientific materialist knows that "We exist as
> material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the
> consequences of material relations among material entities." is
> because he or she assumes the conclusion before the investigation.
> This is a very slim basis on which to build a world view.
No slimmer than yours. And his belief is based on several centuries of
human experience in which science has proven its worth, and religion has
not.
right if they support it. But that is a morality defined by Evolution,
not religion.
and what supports it is good.
>
> 5. God exists.
Unproven, and so far unprovable.
>
> 7. Life was created.
Unproven, and likely to be proven false within a couple of centuries..
gods intention in mind when they did it, and were not trying to write
history so much as morality.
--
<46057775-29e4-4888...@q13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Naturalism is self-defeating.
Science based on something like your "naturalism" has been remarkably
successful at improving human lives.
> It is based on circular reasoning and
> for many reasons it produces assumptions which are simply not in
> agreement with common human experience. Therefore it is not
> "true" (criterion #1 above). The scientific world-view presupposes
> that the universe is ordered and essentially unchanging.
experience.
> It assumes
> that the laws which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
> universe is observable and understandable to human beings-that the
> human mind has a one-to-one correspondence with the way reality is.
experience.
> The naturalist then proceeds to apply these assumptions to rule out
> all other world views.
observing whether the way the world/universe works conforms to that
assumption or not is acceptable. Unfortunately, the assumptions that
theists make cannot be s tested.
> The spiritual or supernatural are, by
> definition, not real. This is circular reasoning.
the 'real" world in the same was as scientific assumptions can be and
are, that makes them unscientific.
> None of the assumptions made as the foundation of science can be
> proved by experiment or by observation.
its continuation.
> In this sense, at its most
> foundational
> level, science itself is not scientific. It is not that the
> discoveries of science are wrong. Not at all. Clearly science has
> given us access to reliable knowledge about how the physical world
> works. If limited to its proper sphere, science works. It is the
> belief that science is the only valid view of the world and the only
> legitimate means to acquire knowledge about reality which is based
> on circular reasoning.
reality, as verified and validated by several centuries of experience.
> At a recent forum held in the UK a famous
> chemist/
> naturalist was asked how he knows that ALL phenomena can be explained
> by physical laws. After being re-asked a number of times and
> attempting to get around the question, in the end, this naturalist
> was
> forced to confess; to quote "I simply believe it is true." In other
> words, the reason the scientific materialist knows that "We exist as
> material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the
> consequences of material relations among material entities." is
> because he or she assumes the conclusion before the investigation.
> This is a very slim basis on which to build a world view.
human experience in which science has proven its worth, and religion has
not.
>
> There are a number of reasons I simply have to reject naturalism as
> patently false. I will supply a brief list here without taking the
> time to provide my evidence for such reasons. I will leave to reader
> to decide the truth of these claims-each of which, if true, make
> naturalism patently and demonstrably false.
>
> 1. Morality is real. Some activities are inherently wrong.
Activities in a social group are wrong if they injure that society and
> There are a number of reasons I simply have to reject naturalism as
> patently false. I will supply a brief list here without taking the
> time to provide my evidence for such reasons. I will leave to reader
> to decide the truth of these claims-each of which, if true, make
> naturalism patently and demonstrably false.
>
> 1. Morality is real. Some activities are inherently wrong.
right if they support it. But that is a morality defined by Evolution,
not religion.
>
> 2. The existence of good and evil is not just an epiphenomenon. Evil
> is real.
Only in the sense above. What injures a society is evil for that society
> 2. The existence of good and evil is not just an epiphenomenon. Evil
> is real.
and what supports it is good.
>
> 3. Justice is not just a concept. Some behaviors are just and some
> are not just.
Only in the sense above. What is just in a society supports it.
> 3. Justice is not just a concept. Some behaviors are just and some
> are not just.
>
> 4. A human life is inherently more valuable than that of a
> cockroach.
Only to human societies.
> 4. A human life is inherently more valuable than that of a
> cockroach.
>
> 5. God exists.
Unproven, and so far unprovable.
>
> 6. The universe was created.
Unproven, and so far unprovable.
> 6. The universe was created.
>
> 7. Life was created.
Unproven, and likely to be proven false within a couple of centuries..
>
> 8. Beauty is real and not discoverable by any scientific means.
Beauty, as always, lies in the eyes of its beholders.
> 8. Beauty is real and not discoverable by any scientific means.
>
> 9. The Bible is inspired by God.
Even if it were, it is written down by men who did not always have any
> 9. The Bible is inspired by God.
gods intention in mind when they did it, and were not trying to write
history so much as morality.
>
> 10. Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead.
Unproven and unprovable.
> 10. Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead.
--
Davej
Oct 30, 2011, 5:18:42 PM10/30/11
to
On Oct 30, 11:52 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <...> wrote:
> Naturalism is self-defeating. It is based on circular reasoning and
> for many reasons it produces assumptions which are simply not in
> agreement with common human experience.
http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=4904
> Naturalism is self-defeating. It is based on circular reasoning and
> for many reasons it produces assumptions which are simply not in
> agreement with common human experience.
Why cut and paste thisgarbage? Do us a favor and just post a link
labelled "Garbage here."
So John Oakes feels that naturalism isn't as good as supernaturalism.
Well let him defend that viewpoint. Instead he complains about
naturalism yielding circular reasoning, and then stupidly launches
into the most ridiculous set of assumptions and insane circular
reasoning of his own.
Loirbaj
Oct 30, 2011, 9:04:52 PM10/30/11
to
DAVE said,
The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
Precisely. And it is ludicrous in the extreme for man
to deceive himself: that the Cosmos CAN be wholly
understood by our minor intellects, and that the tiny
amount of 'Laws' we proclaim are the entirety of the
universe. Man is in much the same position as an
ant. The ant will never be able to fathom the full
mysteries of the Cosmos. His brain is limited. And so
is Man's limited.
The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
universe is observable and understandable to human
beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
correspondence with the way reality is.
BroilJAB said,
universe is observable and understandable to human
beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
correspondence with the way reality is.
Precisely. And it is ludicrous in the extreme for man
to deceive himself: that the Cosmos CAN be wholly
understood by our minor intellects, and that the tiny
amount of 'Laws' we proclaim are the entirety of the
universe. Man is in much the same position as an
ant. The ant will never be able to fathom the full
mysteries of the Cosmos. His brain is limited. And so
is Man's limited.
ken
Oct 31, 2011, 7:58:06 PM10/31/11
to
On Oct 30, 2:18 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Why cut and paste thisgarbage? Do us a favor and just post a link
> labelled "Garbage here."
Seconded!
> Why cut and paste thisgarbage? Do us a favor and just post a link
> labelled "Garbage here."
Loirbaj
Oct 31, 2011, 8:32:48 PM10/31/11
to
DAVE said,
The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
universe is observable and understandable to human
beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
correspondence with the way reality is.
universe is observable and understandable to human
beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
correspondence with the way reality is.
ken
Oct 31, 2011, 9:29:23 PM10/31/11
to
Loirbaj
Nov 1, 2011, 6:50:49 AM11/1/11
to
DAVE said,
The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
universe is observable and understandable to human
beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
correspondence with the way reality is.
BroilJAB said,
And it infuriates kooks like geezer Kenneth
The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
universe is observable and understandable to human
beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
correspondence with the way reality is.
BroilJAB said,
to hear it stated so well. LOL
It's highly plausible that in the universe there
are God-like creatures. - Richard Dawkins
Davej
Nov 1, 2011, 8:24:45 AM11/1/11
to
On Nov 1, 4:50 am, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> DAVE said,
> The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
> which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
> universe is observable and understandable to human
> beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
> correspondence with the way reality is.
>
Huh? The universe is "understandable" only in that we can try to make
> DAVE said,
> The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
> which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
> universe is observable and understandable to human
> beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
> correspondence with the way reality is.
>
a minimum number of assumptions and then attempt to make observations
to test those assumptions and try to establish what the rules are.
Now what are the rules for the INVISIBLE UNDETECTABLE GAWD in the Sky?
Do we wait for the next asshat who pretends to be "inspired by the
holy spirit' to tell us? How do we test that result?
Circular reasoning is when you say the Bible or Qur'an is the "truth"
because it says so on page 47 or because "you just know."
Joe Bruno
Nov 1, 2011, 9:20:48 AM11/1/11
to
natural law put forth by Isaac Newton
in the 18th century were later found to be faulty by Albert Einstein
when he proved there are things like
Black holes and curved space.Einstein's Theory of Relativity turned
Physics on it's head.
ken
Nov 1, 2011, 10:06:42 AM11/1/11
to
On Oct 30, 2:18 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmmail.com> wrote:
Why cut and paste this garbage?
Do us a favor and just post a link
labelled "Garbage here."
**-**
Why cut and paste this garbage?
Do us a favor and just post a link
labelled "Garbage here."
ilbe...@gmail.com
Nov 1, 2011, 10:36:53 AM11/1/11
to
revised ways of men wearing white coats. Im glad there is a
source that is unchangable over the centuries, that is totally
revealing as to the more major issues concerning our existence, and
that are readily available to all to learn ...that being Genesis
chapter one ............which modern science just happens to be
confirming as absolute truth and NOT the long held psuedo science of
atheistic Naturalism and Materialism which never could produce a
cosmos as design detectable as our ours. Truly, God is saying 'Just
open your eyes..as well as your stubborn prideful hearts so I may be
apart of your life , for, that IS your ultimate purpose and reason for
being alive and for which you were designed and created' . The wise
among us dont keep the door shut.
ilbe...@gmail.com
Nov 1, 2011, 10:31:31 AM11/1/11
to
discoveries concerning the detectable and measurable Life Enabling
Constants (over 150 extremely critical ones working in unison all so
we can live on THIS planet) and the many Physics Constants where
mathematical laws, laws of biology, laws of chemistry, et al... are
precise and unchangable for our distinct benefit . You wouldnt try
to denounce these things if it were your automobile in question coming
from a willful Creator, yet, youll gladly try and blow off anything
that involves something on a much larger scale due to the personal
implications it has to your own life (ie: threat of loosing
autonomy, threat of moral culpability, not wanting to be owned or
dictated to concerning how to live , not wanting anyone to be higher
than and over you regarding importance , to mention just a
few. ) . Lets cut to the chase : Youre willing to go with random
chance and complete lack of purpose and meaning for all that is in the
cosmos , including you as a worthless , hopeless , directionless
person that haphazardly graduated from a piece of slimey Pond scum
from the sky pixie of dead chemicals in the
sky.................instead of every publicly admitting that you have
a personal Creator in whos image you bear. I played the charade
game for a good ten years as an atheist wannabe, so, i know the
benefits (which are only very temporary) . Come clean
Friend ...theres real freedom to be had, as well as realizing your
actual purpose to being alive during this point in history. And it
isnt to please yourself as the days go into months and the months
turn into years until your earthly life is over with.
ken
Nov 1, 2011, 10:42:34 AM11/1/11
to
from Dimwitted Davie Boi
Davej
Nov 1, 2011, 11:17:32 AM11/1/11
to
On Nov 1, 8:31 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 7:24 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 4:50 am, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> > > DAVE said,
> > > The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
> > > which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
> > > universe is observable and understandable to human
> > > beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
> > > correspondence with the way reality is.
>
> > Huh? The universe is "understandable" only in that we can try to make
> > a minimum number of assumptions and then attempt to make observations
> > to test those assumptions and try to establish what the rules are.
>
> > Now what are the rules for the INVISIBLE UNDETECTABLE GAWD in the Sky?
> > Do we wait for the next asshat who pretends to be "inspired by the
> > holy spirit' to tell us? How do we test that result?
>
> > Circular reasoning is when you say the Bible or Qur'an is the "truth"
> > because it says so on page 47 or because "you just know."
>
> No...the Universe is understandable based on the scientific
> discoveries concerning the detectable and measurable Life Enabling
> Constants (over 150 extremely critical ones working in unison all so
> we can live on THIS planet) and the many Physics Constants where
> mathematical laws, laws of biology, laws of chemistry, et al... are
> precise and unchangable for our distinct benefit . [...]
> On Nov 1, 7:24 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 4:50 am, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> > > DAVE said,
> > > The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
> > > which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
> > > universe is observable and understandable to human
> > > beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
> > > correspondence with the way reality is.
>
> > Huh? The universe is "understandable" only in that we can try to make
> > a minimum number of assumptions and then attempt to make observations
> > to test those assumptions and try to establish what the rules are.
>
> > Now what are the rules for the INVISIBLE UNDETECTABLE GAWD in the Sky?
> > Do we wait for the next asshat who pretends to be "inspired by the
> > holy spirit' to tell us? How do we test that result?
>
> > Circular reasoning is when you say the Bible or Qur'an is the "truth"
> > because it says so on page 47 or because "you just know."
>
> No...the Universe is understandable based on the scientific
> discoveries concerning the detectable and measurable Life Enabling
> Constants (over 150 extremely critical ones working in unison all so
> we can live on THIS planet) and the many Physics Constants where
> mathematical laws, laws of biology, laws of chemistry, et al... are
Baloney. You keep wanting to pretend that physical constants could
have other values with ZERO evidence for that. ZERO EVIDENCE.
raven1
Nov 1, 2011, 11:31:11 AM11/1/11
to
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 07:36:53 -0700 (PDT), "IlBe...@gmail.com"
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 1, 8:20 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 3:50 am, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>>
>> > DAVE said,
>> > The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
>> > which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
>> > universe is observable and understandable to human
>> > beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
>> > correspondence with the way reality is.
>>
>> > BroilJAB said,
>> > And it infuriates kooks like geezer Kenneth
>> > to hear it stated so well. LOL
>>
>> > It's highly plausible that in the universe there
>> > are God-like creatures. - Richard Dawkins
>>
>> The scientists are sometimes wrong.The principles of Physics and
>> natural law put forth by Isaac Newton
>> in the 18th century were later found to be faulty by Albert Einstein
>> when he proved there are things like
>> Black holes and curved space.Einstein's Theory of Relativity turned
>> Physics on it's head.
>
>This is a good example of the ever changing , unsure, always being
>revised ways of men wearing white coats.
You (and "Joe Bruno") really are appallingly ignorant of science.
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 1, 8:20 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 3:50 am, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>>
>> > DAVE said,
>> > The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
>> > which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
>> > universe is observable and understandable to human
>> > beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
>> > correspondence with the way reality is.
>>
>> > BroilJAB said,
>> > And it infuriates kooks like geezer Kenneth
>> > to hear it stated so well. LOL
>>
>> > It's highly plausible that in the universe there
>> > are God-like creatures. - Richard Dawkins
>>
>> The scientists are sometimes wrong.The principles of Physics and
>> natural law put forth by Isaac Newton
>> in the 18th century were later found to be faulty by Albert Einstein
>> when he proved there are things like
>> Black holes and curved space.Einstein's Theory of Relativity turned
>> Physics on it's head.
>
>This is a good example of the ever changing , unsure, always being
>revised ways of men wearing white coats.
Newton's discoveries are just as relevant and useful in describing the
world around us as they were when he first published them; Einstein
pointed out that they are insufficient in dealing with very high
speeds and very high gravities, thus Special and General Relativity.
Newton's theories were not so much "wrong" as "incomplete".
> Im glad there is a
>source that is unchangable over the centuries
>, that is totally
>revealing as to the more major issues concerning our existence, and
>that are readily available to all to learn ...that being Genesis
>chapter one
think that the first chapter of Genesis is meant as literal history.
Oh, wait. You *are* just as ignorant of theology as you are of
science. And everything else, I might add.
>............which modern science just happens to be
>confirming as absolute truth
shamelessly?
> and NOT the long held psuedo science of
>atheistic Naturalism and Materialism which never could produce a
>cosmos as design detectable as our ours.
Be specific, and show the math.
> Truly, God is saying 'Just
>open your eyes..as well as your stubborn prideful hearts so I may be
>apart of your life , for, that IS your ultimate purpose and reason for
>being alive and for which you were designed and created' . The wise
>among us dont keep the door shut.
and wilful ignorance. For fuck's sake, get your head out of your ass
and actually *learn* something about how science actually works,
instead of parroting nonsense from Creationist websites that you don't
even understand.
ilbe...@gmail.com
Nov 1, 2011, 12:24:47 PM11/1/11
to
On Nov 1, 10:31 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 07:36:53 -0700 (PDT), "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"
Dont worry...it is impossible that a personal infinite theistic
Creator doesnt exist for what we have . Instead of resorting to foul
language to try and bolster your position, you should be scripting
something in anticipation of your imminent future meeting with your
own Creator whom youve chosen to reject all of your earthly life so
you can have the freedom to live as you like . You cant delay it
forever im afraid. And when you do formulate the script, just
remember that God doesnt believe in 'atheists' .
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 07:36:53 -0700 (PDT), "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"
Creator doesnt exist for what we have . Instead of resorting to foul
language to try and bolster your position, you should be scripting
something in anticipation of your imminent future meeting with your
own Creator whom youve chosen to reject all of your earthly life so
you can have the freedom to live as you like . You cant delay it
forever im afraid. And when you do formulate the script, just
remember that God doesnt believe in 'atheists' .
ilbe...@gmail.com
Nov 1, 2011, 12:20:04 PM11/1/11
to
heart willing ? That is the dilemna .
raven1
Nov 1, 2011, 12:53:18 PM11/1/11
to
>> > and NOT the long held psuedo science of
>> >atheistic Naturalism and Materialism �which never could produce a
>> >cosmos as design detectable as our ours.
>>
>> How do you detect design? How is it measured? By what metric?
>>
>> Be specific, and show the math.
>>
>> > � Truly, God is saying 'Just
>> >open your eyes..as well as your stubborn prideful hearts so I may be
>> >apart of your life , for, that IS your ultimate purpose and reason for
>> >being alive and for which you were designed and created' �. � The wise
>> >among us dont keep the door shut.
>>
>> Dave, if there is a God, he's crying his eyes out at your dishonesty
>> and wilful ignorance. For fuck's sake, get your head out of your ass
>> and actually *learn* something about how science actually works,
>> instead of parroting nonsense from Creationist websites that you don't
>> even understand.
>
>Dont worry...it is impossible that a personal infinite theistic
>Creator doesnt exist for what we have .
Why? Because you say so?
>> >apart of your life , for, that IS your ultimate purpose and reason for
>> >being alive and for which you were designed and created' �. � The wise
>> >among us dont keep the door shut.
>>
>> Dave, if there is a God, he's crying his eyes out at your dishonesty
>> and wilful ignorance. For fuck's sake, get your head out of your ass
>> and actually *learn* something about how science actually works,
>> instead of parroting nonsense from Creationist websites that you don't
>> even understand.
>
>Dont worry...it is impossible that a personal infinite theistic
>Creator doesnt exist for what we have .
> Instead of resorting to foul
>language to try and bolster your position,
hardly surprising.
> you should be scripting
>something in anticipation of your imminent future meeting with your
>own Creator
creator, I'll ask it quite bluntly "if you really wanted to believe in
you, why did you only send ignorant fools to speak on your behalf?".
>whom youve chosen to reject all of your earthly life so
>you can have the freedom to live as you like .
don't live my life any differently than I would if I believed in your
"creator". Stop projecting your own character flaws onto everyone
else.
> You cant delay it
>forever im afraid. And when you do formulate the script, just
>remember that God doesnt believe in 'atheists' .
Now how about answering my questions: how do you detect design? How is
it measured?
ken
Nov 1, 2011, 12:28:58 PM11/1/11
to
from Dimwitted Davie Boi,
but he NEVER has any answers
but he NEVER has any answers
raven1
Nov 1, 2011, 12:55:57 PM11/1/11
to
> BUT, is your
>heart willing ? That is the dilemna .
Ken
Nov 1, 2011, 12:39:51 PM11/1/11
to
Links to fundy sites, quotes mined from gullible xtian apologists,
biblethumping youtube vids and
"Well...Because I say so" is NOT evidence
The Dilemma is: That you're a LYING PIECE OF SHIT!
Dave said: Post whatever questions you like.
Just start a new thread and make
them clear and consise [sic]
Then he RUNS AWAY
raven1
Nov 1, 2011, 12:54:47 PM11/1/11
to
>No...the Universe is understandable based on the scientific
>discoveries concerning the detectable and measurable Life Enabling
>Constants (over 150 extremely critical ones working in unison all so
>we can live on THIS planet)
You, sir, are a liar. List them.
>discoveries concerning the detectable and measurable Life Enabling
>Constants (over 150 extremely critical ones working in unison all so
>we can live on THIS planet)
Davej
Nov 1, 2011, 1:06:41 PM11/1/11
to
values.
Conan the bacterium
Nov 1, 2011, 1:22:38 PM11/1/11
to
You claimed them, now you list them,
or else be shown a lair (yes, I know
the sting wears off after the first few hundred
times).
Right here, sonny:
conan
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 1, 2011, 1:39:14 PM11/1/11
to
JD
Ken
Nov 1, 2011, 1:45:56 PM11/1/11
to
On Nov 1, 10:39 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 7:36 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote this shit:
> > This is a good example of the ever changing , unsure, always being
> > revised ways of men wearing white coats. Im glad there is a
> > source that is unchangable over the centuries, that is totally
> > revealing as to the more major issues concerning our existence, and
> > that are readily available to all to learn ...that being Genesis
> > chapter one ............which modern science just happens to be
> > confirming as absolute truth
>
> Oh, dear, you're going to have to provide a citation for that whopper.
>
> JD-
But Fundy Dave doesn't DO evidence, proof, references, science or
reality
> On Nov 1, 7:36 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote this shit:
> > This is a good example of the ever changing , unsure, always being
> > revised ways of men wearing white coats. Im glad there is a
> > source that is unchangable over the centuries, that is totally
> > revealing as to the more major issues concerning our existence, and
> > that are readily available to all to learn ...that being Genesis
> > chapter one ............which modern science just happens to be
> > confirming as absolute truth
>
> Oh, dear, you're going to have to provide a citation for that whopper.
>
But Fundy Dave doesn't DO evidence, proof, references, science or
reality
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 1, 2011, 1:43:38 PM11/1/11
to
On Nov 1, 7:31 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 7:24 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 4:50 am, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> > > DAVE said,
> > > The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
> > > which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
> > > universe is observable and understandable to human
> > > beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
> > > correspondence with the way reality is.
>
> > Huh? The universe is "understandable" only in that we can try to make
> > a minimum number of assumptions and then attempt to make observations
> > to test those assumptions and try to establish what the rules are.
>
> > Now what are the rules for the INVISIBLE UNDETECTABLE GAWD in the Sky?
> > Do we wait for the next asshat who pretends to be "inspired by the
> > holy spirit' to tell us? How do we test that result?
>
> > Circular reasoning is when you say the Bible or Qur'an is the "truth"
> > because it says so on page 47 or because "you just know."
>
> No...the Universe is understandable based on the scientific
> discoveries concerning the detectable and measurable Life Enabling
> Constants (over 150 extremely critical ones working in unison all so
> we can live on THIS planet)
We're still waiting for that list. You can start it right here:
> On Nov 1, 7:24 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 4:50 am, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> > > DAVE said,
> > > The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
> > > which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
> > > universe is observable and understandable to human
> > > beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
> > > correspondence with the way reality is.
>
> > Huh? The universe is "understandable" only in that we can try to make
> > a minimum number of assumptions and then attempt to make observations
> > to test those assumptions and try to establish what the rules are.
>
> > Now what are the rules for the INVISIBLE UNDETECTABLE GAWD in the Sky?
> > Do we wait for the next asshat who pretends to be "inspired by the
> > holy spirit' to tell us? How do we test that result?
>
> > Circular reasoning is when you say the Bible or Qur'an is the "truth"
> > because it says so on page 47 or because "you just know."
>
> No...the Universe is understandable based on the scientific
> discoveries concerning the detectable and measurable Life Enabling
> Constants (over 150 extremely critical ones working in unison all so
> we can live on THIS planet)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
....
150.
> few. ) . Lets cut to the chase : Youre willing to go with random
> chance
> and complete lack of purpose and meaning for all that is in the
> cosmos ,
happy as possible, and to do whatever (however little) I can to help
the horribly disadvantaged of the world. (My particular vehicle for
most of this is Kiva--I highly recommend it to anyone looking for
someplace to put your money where it will do the most good, via
microloans.)
>including you as a worthless , hopeless , directionless
> person that haphazardly graduated from a piece of slimey Pond scum
> a personal Creator in whos image you bear. I played the charade
> game for a good ten years as an atheist wannabe,
JD
Conan the bacterium
Nov 1, 2011, 2:34:46 PM11/1/11
to
> On Nov 1, 7:24 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 4:50 am, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> > > DAVE said,
> > > The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
> > > which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
> > > universe is observable and understandable to human
> > > beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
> > > correspondence with the way reality is.
>
> > Huh? The universe is "understandable" only in that we can try to make
> > a minimum number of assumptions and then attempt to make observations
> > to test those assumptions and try to establish what the rules are.
>
> > Now what are the rules for the INVISIBLE UNDETECTABLE GAWD in the Sky?
> > Do we wait for the next asshat who pretends to be "inspired by the
> > holy spirit' to tell us? How do we test that result?
>
> > Circular reasoning is when you say the Bible or Qur'an is the "truth"
> > because it says so on page 47 or because "you just know."
>
<>
> No...the Universe is understandable based on the scientific
> discoveries concerning the detectable and measurable Life Enabling
> Constants (over 150 extremely critical ones working in unison all so
> we can live on THIS planet)
Great. List `em right here, pal.
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 4:50 am, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> > > DAVE said,
> > > The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
> > > which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
> > > universe is observable and understandable to human
> > > beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
> > > correspondence with the way reality is.
>
> > Huh? The universe is "understandable" only in that we can try to make
> > a minimum number of assumptions and then attempt to make observations
> > to test those assumptions and try to establish what the rules are.
>
> > Now what are the rules for the INVISIBLE UNDETECTABLE GAWD in the Sky?
> > Do we wait for the next asshat who pretends to be "inspired by the
> > holy spirit' to tell us? How do we test that result?
>
> > Circular reasoning is when you say the Bible or Qur'an is the "truth"
> > because it says so on page 47 or because "you just know."
>
<>
> No...the Universe is understandable based on the scientific
> discoveries concerning the detectable and measurable Life Enabling
> Constants (over 150 extremely critical ones working in unison all so
> we can live on THIS planet)
Oh, and by the way --since you are so blatantly
trying to back your way out of "physical constants"
and into the Goldilocks argument instead -- no
one is going to be fooled that the presence of the Moon,
the comet-deflecting Jupiter, our relative position in
the galaxy, and other local accidents are "pysical
constants". The gravitational constant is a physical
constant, the Earth's distance from the sun is not
a physical constant.
Got that. Sure? Really really sure?
Good. Now hop to it:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
35)
36)
37)
38)
39)
40)
41)
42)
43)
44)
45)
46)
47)
48)
49)
50)
51)
52)
53)
54)
55)
56)
57)
58)
59)
60)
61)
62)
63)
64)
65)
66)
67)
68)
69)
70)
71)
72)
73)
74)
75)
76)
77)
78)
79)
80)
81)
82)
83)
84)
85)
86)
87)
88)
89)
90)
91)
92)
93)
94)
95)
96)
97)
98)
99)
100)
101)
102)
103)
104)
105)
106)
107)
108)
109)
110)
111)
112)
113)
114)
115)
116)
117)
118)
119)
120)
121)
122)
123)
124)
125)
126)
127)
128)
129)
130)
131)
132)
133)
134)
135)
136)
137)
138)
139)
140)
141)
142)
143)
144)
145)
146)
147)
148)
149)
150)
.
.
.
;.
.
.
.
.
conan
Ken
Nov 1, 2011, 3:15:58 PM11/1/11
to
On Nov 1, 10:43 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@gmail.com> wrote
concerning Dimwitted Dave:
> Ahhh, actual honesty. You were never an atheist, just a lame wannabe.
>
> JD-
Dave doesn't have enough intelligence to have ever been an atheist.
That's just his cop-out for everything he thinks he did "wrong.....his
gayness, that abortion, his divorce, his drinking and drug use
concerning Dimwitted Dave:
> Ahhh, actual honesty. You were never an atheist, just a lame wannabe.
>
Dave doesn't have enough intelligence to have ever been an atheist.
That's just his cop-out for everything he thinks he did "wrong.....his
gayness, that abortion, his divorce, his drinking and drug use
Virgil
Nov 1, 2011, 4:26:24 PM11/1/11
to
In article
<77109287-4a5b-4c4d...@gk10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
falsely stated as well.
No competent scientist would be foolish enough to say "the human mind
has a one-to-one correspondence with the way reality is". There is far
too much of "reality" not yet understood to justify saying anything like
that.
When science has finally figured out how abiogenesis could have occurred
(not how it did occur, which we will probably never know, but how it
could have occurred, which we re getting closer to every day), we still
will not know EVERYTHING about reality.
It's highly plausible that in the universe there are God-like
creatures. It零 very important to understand that they all came into
being by an EXPLICABLE SCIENTIFIC PROGRESSION OF INCREMENTAL
EVOLUTION.- Richard Dawkins
--
<77109287-4a5b-4c4d...@gk10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> DAVE said,
> The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
> which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
> universe is observable and understandable to human
> beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
> correspondence with the way reality is.
>
> BroilJAB said,
> And it infuriates kooks like geezer Kenneth
> to hear it stated so well. LOL
Except that it is, as creationist statements of such things always are,
> DAVE said,
> The scientific world-view assumes that the laws
> which govern the universe are inviolable and that the
> universe is observable and understandable to human
> beings-that the human mind has a one-to-one
> correspondence with the way reality is.
>
> BroilJAB said,
> And it infuriates kooks like geezer Kenneth
> to hear it stated so well. LOL
falsely stated as well.
No competent scientist would be foolish enough to say "the human mind
has a one-to-one correspondence with the way reality is". There is far
too much of "reality" not yet understood to justify saying anything like
that.
When science has finally figured out how abiogenesis could have occurred
(not how it did occur, which we will probably never know, but how it
could have occurred, which we re getting closer to every day), we still
will not know EVERYTHING about reality.
It's highly plausible that in the universe there are God-like
being by an EXPLICABLE SCIENTIFIC PROGRESSION OF INCREMENTAL
EVOLUTION.- Richard Dawkins
--
Virgil
Nov 1, 2011, 4:28:59 PM11/1/11
to
In article
<fd62024a-dce9-4f55...@bq8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
awaiting the claimed proofs of them that will never come.
--
<fd62024a-dce9-4f55...@bq8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dont worry...it is impossible that a personal infinite theistic
> Creator doesnt exist for what we have .
Claims like this, unproven and unprovable, should be held in limbo
> Dont worry...it is impossible that a personal infinite theistic
> Creator doesnt exist for what we have .
awaiting the claimed proofs of them that will never come.
--
Virgil
Nov 1, 2011, 4:33:06 PM11/1/11
to
In article
<58b407d5-ad31-4d1a...@f36g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
We are the way we are because the universe is the way it is, not the
other way round.
Only the most extremely arrogant can think that the universe was created
for their benefit.
Which makes all creationists guilty of the deadly sin of pride.
--
<58b407d5-ad31-4d1a...@f36g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No...the Universe is understandable based on the scientific
> discoveries concerning the detectable and measurable Life Enabling
> Constants (over 150 extremely critical ones working in unison all so
> we can live on THIS planet) and the many Physics Constants where
> mathematical laws, laws of biology, laws of chemistry, et al... are
> precise and unchangable for our distinct benefit .
You have it backwards as usual.
> No...the Universe is understandable based on the scientific
> discoveries concerning the detectable and measurable Life Enabling
> Constants (over 150 extremely critical ones working in unison all so
> we can live on THIS planet) and the many Physics Constants where
> mathematical laws, laws of biology, laws of chemistry, et al... are
> precise and unchangable for our distinct benefit .
We are the way we are because the universe is the way it is, not the
other way round.
Only the most extremely arrogant can think that the universe was created
for their benefit.
Which makes all creationists guilty of the deadly sin of pride.
--
Virgil
Nov 1, 2011, 4:35:28 PM11/1/11
to
In article
<b1a8ee4e-a6d1-4121...@gy7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Every bit of the "proofs" you provide is, at best, ambiguous. Those who
do not already believe that it proves your god tend to see it as
evidence against your god.
--
<b1a8ee4e-a6d1-4121...@gy7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
do not already believe that it proves your god tend to see it as
evidence against your god.
--
Conan the bacterium
Nov 1, 2011, 4:40:39 PM11/1/11
to
I've looked.
Prove me wrong, davey-boi. Embarrass me.
Make me look the fool.
All it takes is a referrence or two:
conan
Ken
Nov 1, 2011, 5:31:56 PM11/1/11
to
On Nov 1, 1:40 pm, Conan the bacterium
So Davie ran away..HOW UNUSUAL
thoran...@gmail.com
Jan 31, 2017, 5:50:28 PM1/31/17
to
Naturalism is self-defeating. It is based on circular reasoning and
for many reasons it produces assumptions which are simply not in
agreement with common human experience. Therefore it is not
"true" (criterion #1 above). The scientific world-view presupposes
that the universe is ordered and essentially unchanging.
***ME***
And your own hypothesis to the contrary is based on...?
***YOU***
It assumes
So... you believe that logic itself CAN be broken without concluding that our understanding of that rule was wrong in the first place and therefore that rule should be rewritten accordingly?
***YOU***
It... it is. The universe is observable. You're looking at part of it right this second.
***YOU***
Ok, you start of saying that Atheism contradicts human experience, then you basically say that logic, reason and Science can't be trusted because time does loop-de-loops for no reason even though it never has. Ok, well, maybe you have a logical reason we shouldn't believe in logic. Let's see...
***YOU***
The naturalist then proceeds to apply these assumptions to rule out
all other world views. The spiritual or supernatural are, by
definition, not real. This is circular reasoning.
***ME***
So... you are saying that you can either believe that Logic works or gods exist but not both?
***YOU***
None of the
assumptions made as the foundation of science can be proved by
experiment or by observation.
***ME***
Yes they can. That's how it works.
***YOU***
In this sense, at its most
foundational
level, science itself is not scientific.
***ME***
Yes it is.
***YOU***
It is not that the
discoveries of science are wrong. Not at all. Clearly science has
given us access to reliable knowledge about how the physical world
works. If limited to its proper sphere, science works. It is the
belief that science is the only valid view of the world and the only
legitimate means to acquire knowledge about reality which is based on
circular reasoning. At a recent forum held in the UK a famous
chemist/
naturalist was asked how he knows that ALL phenomena can be explained
by physical laws. After being re-asked a number of times and
attempting to get around the question,
***ME***
In other words when a Theist didn't know when to let something go,
***YOU***
in the end, this naturalist
was
forced to confess; to quote "I simply believe it is true."
***ME***
Anything said just to get someone to shut the fuck up about something should be taken with a grain of salt.
***YOU***
In other
words, the reason the scientific materialist knows that "We exist as
material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the
consequences of material relations among material entities." is
because he or she assumes the conclusion before the investigation.
***ME***
No, he was trying to get someone to shut up so he could get on with something more to the point.
***YOU***
This is a very slim basis on which to build a world view.
***ME***
There's no such thing as an Atheist worldview.
***YOU***
There are a number of reasons I simply have to reject naturalism as
patently false. I will supply a brief list here without taking the
time to provide my evidence for such reasons.
***ME***
Hypocrite.
***YOU***
I will leave to reader
to decide the truth of these claims-each of which, if true, make
naturalism patently and demonstrably false.
1. Morality is real. Some activities are inherently wrong.
2. The existence of good and evil is not just an epiphenomenon. Evil
is real.
3. Justice is not just a concept. Some behaviors are just and some
are not just.
4. A human life is inherently more valuable than that of a
cockroach.
***ME***
One of the things I dislike about Religion is the arrogance to think the Universe gives a shit about you. Insects outnumber us, you know. What you call "civilisation" is a failed, shoddy attempt by monkeys to replicate the success of ants.
***YOU***
5. God exists.
***ME***
Prove it.
***YOU***
6. The universe was created.
***ME***
Baseless assumption
***YOU***
7. Life was created.
8. Beauty is real and not discoverable by any scientific means.
***ME***
No it isn't. Beauty is subjective. It varies from species to species, by sexual orientation, by fetish etc.
***YOU***
9. The Bible is inspired by God.
***ME***
And this is different from the Odyssey how?
***YOU***
10. Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead.
***ME***
There are many hypothesese about that, personally I think the New Testiment was loosely based on 2 psychos: a cult leader named Joshua and some other guy who thought he was the first one.
***YOU***
This list can be made much longer. In the final analysis
the concepts of right and wrong are not just a human invention. I
have found that even those who claim that there is no right or wrong-
no evil or good-are not consistent with their own belief.
***ME***
That is impossible. You can't be inconsistent with your own beliefs. You CAN be inconsistent with AN OUTSIDER'S MISUNDERSTANDING of your beliefs, though. In other words, you straw-man us and then when we correct you, you think we're the one's being "inconsistent" rather than you being stupid.
***YOU***
It is
ironic to me that I have witnessed atheists expressing moral outrage
over the things done by "religionists."
***ME***
How so? And DON'T say "according to your worldview..." tell us how having a conscience contradicts WHAT WE ACTUALLY SAID, not what you arbitrarily assume.
***YOU***
The naturalist may protest
it
is not true, but I say that "I" exist.
***ME***
Um... ok.
***YOU***
I am not just a sack of
chemicals moving around, with nerve synapses firing off according to
patterns guided by my genetic makeup;
***ME***
Are you denying you have a brain? (I want you to know how many jokes i decided not to make at this point because it was too easy. 3. 3 jokes I decided not to make.)
***YOU***
determined by my environment.
I
am a person with a reality apart from my chemicals. Naturalism is
just plain not true.
***ME***
Based on...?
***YOU***
Point number two of the argument for why naturalism is not a "good"
world view: It does not answer any of the questions or solve any of
the problems human beings really care about. Science is good at
answering questions such as When? How much? Where? How long? It
can answer provisional questions of why, such as why does it rain or
why do stars form, but it cannot answer any of the fundamental/
ontological/teleological why questions-
***ME***
Duh. That's philosophy not Science.
***YOU***
even about the natural world.
For example, science is not helpful at all for answering such basic
questions as "Why is gravity as strong as it is," or "Why does the
electromagnetic force exist,?" or "Why does the universe exist?" If
science cannot answer these questions, it certainly cannot even hint
at an answer to a single one of the questions people really care
about
(as listed above) such as: "Why am I here?"
***ME***
Your parents fucked.
***YOU***
"What is my purpose?"
***ME***
The Meaning of Life. You are complaining that Science doesn't answer a philosophical question NO ONE knows the answer to and smarter people than you have failed to figure out for centuries.
Then why the hell do you believe ANYTHING? If you reject a belief system because it doesn't answer something NOTHING answers, then what CAN you believe?
***YOU***
"Does God exist?"
***ME***
No.
***YOU***
"What happens to me when I die?"
***ME***
You smell bad
***YOU***
"How should I
act?"
***ME***
You keep asking Science to answer philosophical questions. It's stupid.
***YOU***
"How should I treat other people?" "Why is it possible for
humans to understand how the universe works?"
***ME***
Science
***YOU***
"Why is there evil in
the world?" Bottom line, scientific materialism does not even give
wrong answers, it gives no answer at all to these questions
***ME***
Because they are completely different subjects you moron.
***YOU***
(There is
one exception. Science provides offers an answer to the question
What
happens when I die? The "scientific" answer is that life simply ends
and entropy takes over.) It says that these are nonsense questions.
My experience tells me that ignoring important questions and
pretending that difficult problems do not exist is a bad way of
dealing with such questions and problems.
***ME***
How about "go away you idiot, bother someone who cares about that"? To my mind that's a perfectly valid answer. It's similar to the answer one might expect when calling Playstation tech support about a broken toilet. And it's not a cop out! They're right! "This is Sony, call a plumber you moron" IS the answer to getting your toilet fixed.
***YOU***
I do not mean to imply
that
Naturalists do not ask these questions or that they do not on an
individual basis try to help solve some of the important human
problems. It is just that their world view
***ME***
There's no such thing as an "Atheist worldview".
***YOU***
is not at all helpful for
these things.
The third criterion from my personal list of qualities which make for
a "good" world view
***ME***
No such thing
***YOU***
is that holding to this view of the world must
cause a person to be "better" than he or she would otherwise have
been
if not holding to this world view or if holding to alternative world
views. Admittedly, this criterion is fairly subjective,
***ME***
You just went on and on about how morality was NOT subjective. Make up your mind!
***YOU***
but there
are
a number of measurements of goodness to which virtually all humans
would subscribe. I believe that Naturalism is not a good world view
***ME***
No such thing
***YOU***
if judged by this criterion. Let me state before entering this area
that I have a number of friends who are Naturalists.
***ME***
I don't think I even need to point out the "I have black friends" defence.
***YOU***
This is only
"natural" because I am a scientist by profession.
***ME***
*raises eyebrows*
***YOU***
Some of my
scientific materialist acquaintances are rather arrogant and hold to
ethical and moral ideas with which I cannot agree. However, others
have strong ethics and are some of the nicest people I know. No
world
view has a corner on the goodness market, including the one I hold
to.
***ME***
So... this whole "my worldview system is better than yours because I'm better than you" thing is completely moot, then.
***YOU***
With this qualification in mind (and please do not forget it!), let us
consider the motivation for doing "good" under the Naturalist world
view. In theory, the Naturalist believes that there is no purpose to
life and no inherently correct morality.
***ME***
"In theory" = "according to theist's straw-man"
***YOU***
Even ethics is extremely
difficult or impossible to derive from this world view.
***ME***
Which doesn't exist
***YOU***
Like I
already said, some materialists do good deeds. If so, it is probably
not because they are motivated out of their world view.
***ME***
Because it doesn't exist
***YOU***
Something
else must be operating here.
***ME***
Humanism. Duh. Next!
***YOU***
At the risk of offending some, I will make a bold statement here. I
believe that scientific materialism is potentially a dangerous world
view.
***ME***
You just said you know we have morals.
***YOU***
According to this view, human beings have no definable value,
except as a source of genetic material for subsequent generations.
***ME***
Who thinks like that?
***YOU***
Of course, the vast majority of atheists are not violent people and
value human life,
***ME***
You keep going back and forth on whether or not Atheists are evil, AND YOU MOSTLY ADMIT WE'RE NOT.
***YOU***
but there is no moral imperative against murder or
rape or robbery or any other of activities that the Christian and
other world views hold to be morally wrong.
***ME***
Just pick one, ok?
***YOU***
Where does one find the
moral compass?
***ME***
If you have to ask, you're a sociopath.
***YOU***
Any category of sexual behavior is acceptable as long
as no one is hurt.
***ME***
No. BDSM is perfectly acceptable, Rape and incest are not.
***YOU***
Lying may be advantageous to survival and
therefore "good."
***ME***
Bullshit! No one thinks that.
***YOU***
A lot of evil has been done in the name of religion. Anyone who
denies this is not looking at history or is altogether denying the
existence of evil. The difference with the Christian world view
compared to that of Naturalism, however, is that a Christian who is
prejudiced or who lies or who wages war on another for reasons of
greed or power is violating his or her world view and is subject to
being shown to be doing wrong.
***ME***
That's what I used to think too, then I read Luke 14:26.
***YOU***
There is accountability and justice
under the Christian world view. To the Christian there is an
imperative to help our fellow mankind.
***ME***
Deutoronomy. That is my response to that.
***YOU***
Jesus commanded that those
who
follow him must "Do to others what you would want them to do to you."
Such altruism flies is the face of Naturalism as a philosophy.
***ME***
No it doesn't. In nature, animals that act like assholes usually get growled at or bitten.
***YOU***
In
the
Christian world view, as exemplified by its creator Jesus Christ and
as taught by its scriptures, there is a strong imperative to love
others,
***ME***
Luke 14:26
***YOU***
to be honest, to serve others, to shun violence,
***ME***
A lot of the Laws of Moses advocate Death for, by modern standards, minor crimes.
***YOU***
greed,
arrogance and so forth. Many Naturalists follow a strong and
admirable personal ethic, but what is the imperative toward these
"good" behaviors under the Scientific Materialist world view?
***ME***
An African slave in 17th century America picks fruit because he fears punishment.
A monkey just does.
A trafficked human has sex with strangers because a higher power is ordering her to do so.
A slut just does.
A conscripted soldier kills because of the word of Authority.
A maniac just does.
The slaves would all love to stop, and will the very second their masters go away. Nothing in their heart compels them to do what they do. If anything happened to their masters, thet will run. They deserve neither praise nor blame for their actions. They have no choice. If anything, their slave work just makes them want to even less.
But the other three? They are TRUELY hungry/slutty/violent. They do what they do because they want to.
***YOU***
If
there is one, I have not yet seen one, although some materialists
have
made the attempt.
***ME***
Therefore, you HAVE seen one.
***YOU***
Having admitted that much evil has been done by believers, let us
consider the small but significant number of societies which have
publicly avowed an atheist or an anti-God world view.
***ME***
Oh for fuck's sake. If you say "starlin, Mao and pol pot" in that order, I'm going to slap you on the head.
***YOU***
Examples of
this sort which come to mind are France immediately after the French
Revolution,
***ME***
Oh... you didn't jump directly to commies. Good. You actually deserve credit for that. Still, by saying the French Revolution was evil, you're badmouthing Democracy.
I'm not saying it was 100% good either. Very few of those killed were directly responsible for provoking the Revolution in the first place. But you are implying that Atheism is evil because it helped France become a democracy.
***YOU***
Communist Russia, Communist China, Cambodia under Pol Pot
and North Korea.[1]
***ME***
*slaps you on the back of the head*
***YOU***
Inspection of this list of regimes speaks for
itself. In each of these societies individual souls were treated as
if they had little value, with tragic results.
***ME***
That's Communism not Atheism.
***YOU***
The empirical fact
that a societal commitment to belief in no God has such a poor record
in producing human good is not proof that it will never do so.
However, the track record is something we should not ignore.
What about justice and human rights? In the United States, many
subscribe to the idea that "We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men were created equal." Does this idea come from
scientific
inquiry?
***ME***
No it comes from Freemason Deists. Deism is basically Christianity minus all the bullshit. Deists actually agree with us on everything that can be proven or disproven. The Deist god created the universe... and that's it. The Deist go doesn't interfere, doesn't demand worship or anything like that.
***YOU***
Based on their DNA, some are more fit than others. The
Christian ought to believe that all humans are infinitely valuable as
they are created in the image of God.
***ME***
Yes, if you ignore the Curse of Ham.
***YOU***
I am happy to report that
almost none of the Naturalists I have met are racially prejudiced.
***ME***
I noticed a pattern with you.
"Atheists are evil because X. Now I'm not saying you all X, every single Atheist i know does not do X. Still, according to my completely unfounded straw-man, you should all X."
***YOU***
Hopefully the scientifically-inspired Eugenics movement in the early
twentieth century will remain an anomaly, but what is the inherent
source of human dignity and value if, as Huxley said, "man was made
flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents."?
***ME***
You don't even need to stop thinking in cliches to notice that Atheists tend to be Liberal and Christans tend to be racist.
***YOU***
To summarize, the committed Naturalist believes that the only truth in
the universe is that which can be discovered by the scientific
method-
***ME***
Wrong.
***YOU***
through experiment and rational analysis of the information derived
from empirical evidence. This world view fails miserably at the
three
criteria proposed in this paper for deciding what world view is best.
***ME***
By you, the "three criterion" you yourself made up.
***YOU***
Its support is circular
***ME***
No it isn't.
***YOU***
and its conclusions are patently false. It
cannot answer the most important questions
***ME***
Philosophical bullshit is not important.
***YOU***
or solve the fundamental
problems that human beings care about.
***ME***
Not all humans care about philosophical bullshit.
***YOU***
It does not, in and of
itself,
tend to cause those who hold to it to be "good."
***ME***
Humanism, also, the Crusades you hypocrite.
***YOU***
I believe that the
Christian world view is vastly superior to Materialism on all these
counts
***ME***
You'd think "criterion for a good worldview" made up by a bias idiot would match his own religion perfectly wouldn't you, Sadly, you made it up yourself and Christianity STILL fails. ESPECIALLY if one applies to Christianity you applied to Atheism.
Not a single Christian I've ever met would ever make his daughter marry her rapist, but in theory they're supposed to, therefore Christianity is evil.
for many reasons it produces assumptions which are simply not in
agreement with common human experience. Therefore it is not
"true" (criterion #1 above). The scientific world-view presupposes
that the universe is ordered and essentially unchanging.
***ME***
And your own hypothesis to the contrary is based on...?
***YOU***
It assumes
that the laws which govern the universe are inviolable
***ME***
So... you believe that logic itself CAN be broken without concluding that our understanding of that rule was wrong in the first place and therefore that rule should be rewritten accordingly?
***YOU***
and that the
universe is observable
***ME***
universe is observable
It... it is. The universe is observable. You're looking at part of it right this second.
***YOU***
and understandable to human beings-that the
human mind has a one-to-one correspondence with the way reality is.
***ME***
human mind has a one-to-one correspondence with the way reality is.
Ok, you start of saying that Atheism contradicts human experience, then you basically say that logic, reason and Science can't be trusted because time does loop-de-loops for no reason even though it never has. Ok, well, maybe you have a logical reason we shouldn't believe in logic. Let's see...
***YOU***
The naturalist then proceeds to apply these assumptions to rule out
all other world views. The spiritual or supernatural are, by
definition, not real. This is circular reasoning.
***ME***
So... you are saying that you can either believe that Logic works or gods exist but not both?
***YOU***
None of the
assumptions made as the foundation of science can be proved by
experiment or by observation.
***ME***
Yes they can. That's how it works.
***YOU***
In this sense, at its most
foundational
level, science itself is not scientific.
***ME***
Yes it is.
***YOU***
It is not that the
discoveries of science are wrong. Not at all. Clearly science has
given us access to reliable knowledge about how the physical world
works. If limited to its proper sphere, science works. It is the
belief that science is the only valid view of the world and the only
legitimate means to acquire knowledge about reality which is based on
circular reasoning. At a recent forum held in the UK a famous
chemist/
naturalist was asked how he knows that ALL phenomena can be explained
by physical laws. After being re-asked a number of times and
attempting to get around the question,
***ME***
In other words when a Theist didn't know when to let something go,
***YOU***
in the end, this naturalist
was
forced to confess; to quote "I simply believe it is true."
***ME***
Anything said just to get someone to shut the fuck up about something should be taken with a grain of salt.
***YOU***
In other
words, the reason the scientific materialist knows that "We exist as
material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the
consequences of material relations among material entities." is
because he or she assumes the conclusion before the investigation.
***ME***
No, he was trying to get someone to shut up so he could get on with something more to the point.
***YOU***
This is a very slim basis on which to build a world view.
***ME***
There's no such thing as an Atheist worldview.
***YOU***
There are a number of reasons I simply have to reject naturalism as
patently false. I will supply a brief list here without taking the
time to provide my evidence for such reasons.
***ME***
Hypocrite.
***YOU***
I will leave to reader
to decide the truth of these claims-each of which, if true, make
naturalism patently and demonstrably false.
1. Morality is real. Some activities are inherently wrong.
2. The existence of good and evil is not just an epiphenomenon. Evil
is real.
3. Justice is not just a concept. Some behaviors are just and some
are not just.
4. A human life is inherently more valuable than that of a
cockroach.
***ME***
One of the things I dislike about Religion is the arrogance to think the Universe gives a shit about you. Insects outnumber us, you know. What you call "civilisation" is a failed, shoddy attempt by monkeys to replicate the success of ants.
***YOU***
5. God exists.
***ME***
Prove it.
***YOU***
6. The universe was created.
***ME***
Baseless assumption
***YOU***
7. Life was created.
8. Beauty is real and not discoverable by any scientific means.
***ME***
No it isn't. Beauty is subjective. It varies from species to species, by sexual orientation, by fetish etc.
***YOU***
9. The Bible is inspired by God.
***ME***
And this is different from the Odyssey how?
***YOU***
10. Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead.
***ME***
There are many hypothesese about that, personally I think the New Testiment was loosely based on 2 psychos: a cult leader named Joshua and some other guy who thought he was the first one.
***YOU***
This list can be made much longer. In the final analysis
the concepts of right and wrong are not just a human invention. I
have found that even those who claim that there is no right or wrong-
no evil or good-are not consistent with their own belief.
***ME***
That is impossible. You can't be inconsistent with your own beliefs. You CAN be inconsistent with AN OUTSIDER'S MISUNDERSTANDING of your beliefs, though. In other words, you straw-man us and then when we correct you, you think we're the one's being "inconsistent" rather than you being stupid.
***YOU***
It is
ironic to me that I have witnessed atheists expressing moral outrage
over the things done by "religionists."
***ME***
How so? And DON'T say "according to your worldview..." tell us how having a conscience contradicts WHAT WE ACTUALLY SAID, not what you arbitrarily assume.
***YOU***
The naturalist may protest
it
is not true, but I say that "I" exist.
***ME***
Um... ok.
***YOU***
I am not just a sack of
chemicals moving around, with nerve synapses firing off according to
patterns guided by my genetic makeup;
***ME***
Are you denying you have a brain? (I want you to know how many jokes i decided not to make at this point because it was too easy. 3. 3 jokes I decided not to make.)
***YOU***
determined by my environment.
I
am a person with a reality apart from my chemicals. Naturalism is
just plain not true.
***ME***
Based on...?
***YOU***
Point number two of the argument for why naturalism is not a "good"
world view: It does not answer any of the questions or solve any of
the problems human beings really care about. Science is good at
answering questions such as When? How much? Where? How long? It
can answer provisional questions of why, such as why does it rain or
why do stars form, but it cannot answer any of the fundamental/
ontological/teleological why questions-
***ME***
Duh. That's philosophy not Science.
***YOU***
even about the natural world.
For example, science is not helpful at all for answering such basic
questions as "Why is gravity as strong as it is," or "Why does the
electromagnetic force exist,?" or "Why does the universe exist?" If
science cannot answer these questions, it certainly cannot even hint
at an answer to a single one of the questions people really care
about
(as listed above) such as: "Why am I here?"
***ME***
Your parents fucked.
***YOU***
"What is my purpose?"
***ME***
The Meaning of Life. You are complaining that Science doesn't answer a philosophical question NO ONE knows the answer to and smarter people than you have failed to figure out for centuries.
Then why the hell do you believe ANYTHING? If you reject a belief system because it doesn't answer something NOTHING answers, then what CAN you believe?
***YOU***
"Does God exist?"
***ME***
No.
***YOU***
"What happens to me when I die?"
***ME***
You smell bad
***YOU***
"How should I
act?"
***ME***
You keep asking Science to answer philosophical questions. It's stupid.
***YOU***
"How should I treat other people?" "Why is it possible for
humans to understand how the universe works?"
***ME***
Science
***YOU***
"Why is there evil in
the world?" Bottom line, scientific materialism does not even give
wrong answers, it gives no answer at all to these questions
***ME***
Because they are completely different subjects you moron.
***YOU***
(There is
one exception. Science provides offers an answer to the question
What
happens when I die? The "scientific" answer is that life simply ends
and entropy takes over.) It says that these are nonsense questions.
My experience tells me that ignoring important questions and
pretending that difficult problems do not exist is a bad way of
dealing with such questions and problems.
***ME***
How about "go away you idiot, bother someone who cares about that"? To my mind that's a perfectly valid answer. It's similar to the answer one might expect when calling Playstation tech support about a broken toilet. And it's not a cop out! They're right! "This is Sony, call a plumber you moron" IS the answer to getting your toilet fixed.
***YOU***
I do not mean to imply
that
Naturalists do not ask these questions or that they do not on an
individual basis try to help solve some of the important human
problems. It is just that their world view
***ME***
There's no such thing as an "Atheist worldview".
***YOU***
is not at all helpful for
these things.
The third criterion from my personal list of qualities which make for
a "good" world view
***ME***
No such thing
***YOU***
is that holding to this view of the world must
cause a person to be "better" than he or she would otherwise have
been
if not holding to this world view or if holding to alternative world
views. Admittedly, this criterion is fairly subjective,
***ME***
You just went on and on about how morality was NOT subjective. Make up your mind!
***YOU***
but there
are
a number of measurements of goodness to which virtually all humans
would subscribe. I believe that Naturalism is not a good world view
***ME***
No such thing
***YOU***
if judged by this criterion. Let me state before entering this area
that I have a number of friends who are Naturalists.
***ME***
I don't think I even need to point out the "I have black friends" defence.
***YOU***
This is only
"natural" because I am a scientist by profession.
***ME***
*raises eyebrows*
***YOU***
Some of my
scientific materialist acquaintances are rather arrogant and hold to
ethical and moral ideas with which I cannot agree. However, others
have strong ethics and are some of the nicest people I know. No
world
view has a corner on the goodness market, including the one I hold
to.
***ME***
So... this whole "my worldview system is better than yours because I'm better than you" thing is completely moot, then.
***YOU***
With this qualification in mind (and please do not forget it!), let us
consider the motivation for doing "good" under the Naturalist world
view. In theory, the Naturalist believes that there is no purpose to
life and no inherently correct morality.
***ME***
"In theory" = "according to theist's straw-man"
***YOU***
Even ethics is extremely
difficult or impossible to derive from this world view.
***ME***
Which doesn't exist
***YOU***
Like I
already said, some materialists do good deeds. If so, it is probably
not because they are motivated out of their world view.
***ME***
Because it doesn't exist
***YOU***
Something
else must be operating here.
***ME***
Humanism. Duh. Next!
***YOU***
At the risk of offending some, I will make a bold statement here. I
believe that scientific materialism is potentially a dangerous world
view.
***ME***
You just said you know we have morals.
***YOU***
According to this view, human beings have no definable value,
except as a source of genetic material for subsequent generations.
***ME***
Who thinks like that?
***YOU***
Of course, the vast majority of atheists are not violent people and
value human life,
***ME***
You keep going back and forth on whether or not Atheists are evil, AND YOU MOSTLY ADMIT WE'RE NOT.
***YOU***
but there is no moral imperative against murder or
rape or robbery or any other of activities that the Christian and
other world views hold to be morally wrong.
***ME***
Just pick one, ok?
***YOU***
Where does one find the
moral compass?
***ME***
If you have to ask, you're a sociopath.
***YOU***
Any category of sexual behavior is acceptable as long
as no one is hurt.
***ME***
No. BDSM is perfectly acceptable, Rape and incest are not.
***YOU***
Lying may be advantageous to survival and
therefore "good."
***ME***
Bullshit! No one thinks that.
***YOU***
A lot of evil has been done in the name of religion. Anyone who
denies this is not looking at history or is altogether denying the
existence of evil. The difference with the Christian world view
compared to that of Naturalism, however, is that a Christian who is
prejudiced or who lies or who wages war on another for reasons of
greed or power is violating his or her world view and is subject to
being shown to be doing wrong.
***ME***
That's what I used to think too, then I read Luke 14:26.
***YOU***
There is accountability and justice
under the Christian world view. To the Christian there is an
imperative to help our fellow mankind.
***ME***
Deutoronomy. That is my response to that.
***YOU***
Jesus commanded that those
who
follow him must "Do to others what you would want them to do to you."
Such altruism flies is the face of Naturalism as a philosophy.
***ME***
No it doesn't. In nature, animals that act like assholes usually get growled at or bitten.
***YOU***
In
the
Christian world view, as exemplified by its creator Jesus Christ and
as taught by its scriptures, there is a strong imperative to love
others,
***ME***
Luke 14:26
***YOU***
to be honest, to serve others, to shun violence,
***ME***
A lot of the Laws of Moses advocate Death for, by modern standards, minor crimes.
***YOU***
greed,
arrogance and so forth. Many Naturalists follow a strong and
admirable personal ethic, but what is the imperative toward these
"good" behaviors under the Scientific Materialist world view?
***ME***
An African slave in 17th century America picks fruit because he fears punishment.
A monkey just does.
A trafficked human has sex with strangers because a higher power is ordering her to do so.
A slut just does.
A conscripted soldier kills because of the word of Authority.
A maniac just does.
The slaves would all love to stop, and will the very second their masters go away. Nothing in their heart compels them to do what they do. If anything happened to their masters, thet will run. They deserve neither praise nor blame for their actions. They have no choice. If anything, their slave work just makes them want to even less.
But the other three? They are TRUELY hungry/slutty/violent. They do what they do because they want to.
***YOU***
If
there is one, I have not yet seen one, although some materialists
have
made the attempt.
***ME***
Therefore, you HAVE seen one.
***YOU***
Having admitted that much evil has been done by believers, let us
consider the small but significant number of societies which have
publicly avowed an atheist or an anti-God world view.
***ME***
Oh for fuck's sake. If you say "starlin, Mao and pol pot" in that order, I'm going to slap you on the head.
***YOU***
Examples of
this sort which come to mind are France immediately after the French
Revolution,
***ME***
Oh... you didn't jump directly to commies. Good. You actually deserve credit for that. Still, by saying the French Revolution was evil, you're badmouthing Democracy.
I'm not saying it was 100% good either. Very few of those killed were directly responsible for provoking the Revolution in the first place. But you are implying that Atheism is evil because it helped France become a democracy.
***YOU***
Communist Russia, Communist China, Cambodia under Pol Pot
and North Korea.[1]
***ME***
*slaps you on the back of the head*
***YOU***
Inspection of this list of regimes speaks for
itself. In each of these societies individual souls were treated as
if they had little value, with tragic results.
***ME***
That's Communism not Atheism.
***YOU***
The empirical fact
that a societal commitment to belief in no God has such a poor record
in producing human good is not proof that it will never do so.
However, the track record is something we should not ignore.
What about justice and human rights? In the United States, many
subscribe to the idea that "We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men were created equal." Does this idea come from
scientific
inquiry?
***ME***
No it comes from Freemason Deists. Deism is basically Christianity minus all the bullshit. Deists actually agree with us on everything that can be proven or disproven. The Deist god created the universe... and that's it. The Deist go doesn't interfere, doesn't demand worship or anything like that.
***YOU***
Based on their DNA, some are more fit than others. The
Christian ought to believe that all humans are infinitely valuable as
they are created in the image of God.
***ME***
Yes, if you ignore the Curse of Ham.
***YOU***
I am happy to report that
almost none of the Naturalists I have met are racially prejudiced.
***ME***
I noticed a pattern with you.
"Atheists are evil because X. Now I'm not saying you all X, every single Atheist i know does not do X. Still, according to my completely unfounded straw-man, you should all X."
***YOU***
Hopefully the scientifically-inspired Eugenics movement in the early
twentieth century will remain an anomaly, but what is the inherent
source of human dignity and value if, as Huxley said, "man was made
flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents."?
***ME***
You don't even need to stop thinking in cliches to notice that Atheists tend to be Liberal and Christans tend to be racist.
***YOU***
To summarize, the committed Naturalist believes that the only truth in
the universe is that which can be discovered by the scientific
method-
***ME***
Wrong.
***YOU***
through experiment and rational analysis of the information derived
from empirical evidence. This world view fails miserably at the
three
criteria proposed in this paper for deciding what world view is best.
***ME***
By you, the "three criterion" you yourself made up.
***YOU***
Its support is circular
***ME***
No it isn't.
***YOU***
and its conclusions are patently false. It
cannot answer the most important questions
***ME***
Philosophical bullshit is not important.
***YOU***
or solve the fundamental
problems that human beings care about.
***ME***
Not all humans care about philosophical bullshit.
***YOU***
It does not, in and of
itself,
tend to cause those who hold to it to be "good."
***ME***
Humanism, also, the Crusades you hypocrite.
***YOU***
I believe that the
Christian world view is vastly superior to Materialism on all these
counts
***ME***
You'd think "criterion for a good worldview" made up by a bias idiot would match his own religion perfectly wouldn't you, Sadly, you made it up yourself and Christianity STILL fails. ESPECIALLY if one applies to Christianity you applied to Atheism.
Not a single Christian I've ever met would ever make his daughter marry her rapist, but in theory they're supposed to, therefore Christianity is evil.
0 new messages