Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:13 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Evolution is wrong, and here's how i know 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Evolution is wrong, and here's how i know
Quote:
but in the end your faith in materialism requires you to believe such things as I've mentioned.


Here are some of the "scientific" hypotheses (which by the way are not testable and have zero empirical evidence attached to them) atheism bestows epistemic faith upon. They are part atheism's beliefs:


1) "Many Worlds" hypothesis

2) Darwinism as a Universal mechansim

3) Cosmological Steady State Theory

4) A Universe from Nothing.

5) A Universe from something and nothing

6) Belief on the reliability of unprovable axioms (one of Robert T's favorits) :)

7) Epiphenomenalism (consciousness is an illusion)

eight) Rational beliefs and their reliability arising from chaotic, blind processes (atheists like Interbane and johnson have overcome nature on this one. now it's up to them to correct theism's irrational beliefs! because science is at odds with them! - yesiree, atheism's biggest ally is science!! )

9) The belief that absolute Truth does not exist (there is no absolute truth except the truth that there is no truth - signed: by your friendly neighborhood atheist)

10) The belief that objective purposelessness is intrinsic in nature (one of Johnson's beliefs)

11) The positive claim that there is no God* ( * however, most atheists back off most ANY positive claim when pressed.)

12) Everything will eventually be completely explained by materialism (A total statement of faith)



Last edited by ant on Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.



The following user would like to thank ant for this post:
Flann 5
Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:38 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Evolution is wrong, and here's how i know
Let's take this one

Quote:
7) Epiphenomenalism (consciousness is an illusion)


and this one..,


Quote:
12) Everything will eventually be completely explained by materialism



Although consciousness is like froth on top of a material organ, the illusions created are reliable enough to logically conclude that eventually everything will be explained by materialism.

Evidence? - NONE

:bananadance:



Last edited by ant on Sun Aug 17, 2014 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Aug 17, 2014 1:41 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7040
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1071
Thanked: 2064 times in 1656 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Evolution is wrong, and here's how i know
Quote:
But of course Interbane, the rational consistency of your naturalistic materialist philosophy, requires you to believe that rationality itself came from non rationality,logic from chance, and thought from inert matter in the first place..Minds derived from matter.


What is there underneath this argument from incredulity? Is there some reason that rationality cannot manifest within the laws of nature? Or do you simply find the idea unpalatable? Is the fault with you, or with the explanations that you reject? Have you sought to understand them with an honest open mind? The explanations for the things you find incredible all exist, all have evidence to support them, are rational, and break no rules of logic. In layman's terms, there is no issue with these explanations other than your incredulity.

Quote:
we don't trust in co-incidence when we pray, but God.


You do realize you've avoided every attempt at discussing this further? Of course you trust in God, but that doesn't mean it is God that answers your prayers. In order to determine if your prayers are a product of god or a product of coincidence, what would you do? Or do you reject a priori the notion that it is anything other than god ? Do you appeal to incredulity? Do you appeal to faith? How do you justify what you believe?

Ant, I'm going to copy your comments directly and add to them in bold. You're missing many of the naturalistic ones, and I'll fill in a couple from your side of the fence at the end.

1) "Many Worlds" hypothesis - One of many hypotheses to consider.

2) Darwinism as a Universal mechanism - Do you mean the evolutionary algorithm? It applies in places other than evolution, with much success.

3) Cosmological Steady State Theory - One of many to consider.

4) A Universe from Nothing. - This one's tough to believe, I agree. But we need to keep an open mind.

5) A Universe from something and nothing - You'd have to expand on this one, though I'm sure it's one of the possibilities. It should be considered.

6) Belief on the reliability of unprovable axioms (one of Robert T's favorits) - If the axiom is required for morality, do the ends not justify the means?

7) Epiphenomenalism (consciousness is an illusion) - Consciousness is not an illusion, but an emergent phenomenon. You repeat this mistake often.

8) Rational beliefs and their reliability arising from chaotic, blind processes (atheists like Interbane and johnson have overcome nature on this one. now it's up to them to correct theism's irrational beliefs! because science is at odds with them! - yesiree, atheism's biggest ally is science!! ) - Correct, except I'm more of an agnostic atheist.

9) The belief that absolute Truth does not exist (there is no absolute truth except the truth that there is no truth - signed: by your friendly neighborhood atheist) - Truth is how accurately an abstraction relates to a referent. How could such a thing be absolute, other than analytic truths? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, if they exist.

10) The belief that objective purposelessness is intrinsic in nature (one of Johnson's beliefs) - Are you sure you've accurately labeled johnson's beliefs? There could potentially be purpose, but purpose is not required for life to have arisen, nor for consciousness to have arisen.

11) The positive claim that there is no God* ( * however, most atheists back off most ANY positive claim when pressed.) - Depends on the definition. And you're correct, most atheists are actually agnostic atheists. :cry_baby:

12) Everything will eventually be completely explained by materialism (A total statement of faith) - A statement of inductive reasoning. Faith would be an unsupported statement. But the statement isn't conclusive.

13) God created the universe and went to sleep. - One of many hypotheses to consider.

14) God created the universe and is active in human affairs. - Like #4, this one is tough to believe, but we need to keep an open mind. Some varieties of this can be shown false. Like #11, it depends on the definition.


Now, given the 14 beliefs above, how do we judge their merits? Do we rely on mere palatibility of the idea? Go off the cuff and pick one that feels right? Is that why you pick 13 or 14? I'd like to hear your reasoning on selecting some but not others. In my mind, most of the above cannot be shown to be false, though a couple are slightly in error.

You can't gain the upper ground here ant. You're the one claiming knowledge, in spite of your incessant claims that atheism is worse on that account. When pressed, any atheist worth listening to will admit a more nuanced epistemology. That is not an excuse or a cop out, but honesty. The most honest position is to admit that we truly don't know. Stop pretending that you know. You don't. None of us do. That doesn't mean we treat all ideas equally, or rule some out due to incredulity. History has shown some incredible things to be true in spite of our strongest contrary intuitions.

Get off your high horse ant.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Sun Aug 17, 2014 1:57 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7040
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1071
Thanked: 2064 times in 1656 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Evolution is wrong, and here's how i know
Quote:
Although consciousness is like froth on top of a material organ, the illusions created are reliable enough to logically conclude that eventually everything will be explained by materialism.

Evidence? - NONE


I guess playing the broken record is my new pasttime. Conciousness is not an illusion, it is an emergent phenomenon. If you don't understand the difference, educate yourself. Regarding evidence, there is a lot of evidence.

Must be nice to believe whatever you want in spite of being shown false over and over again. :slap:


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Sun Aug 17, 2014 1:59 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Evolution is wrong, and here's how i know
An agnostic atheist is even worse than an atheist.



Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:34 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1761
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 729 times in 547 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Evolution is wrong, and here's how i know
ant wrote:
An agnostic atheist is even worse than an atheist.


Ant has come to the end of the road again. The brick wall of confusion about logic and burden of proof.

Does ant believe EVERY claim about God(s) that he cannot disprove? Or does he reason like every other person in the world and not believe things for which there is no good evidence.

We could use ancient religious claims, but then ant will pretend to be offended. Do you believe in the virgin birth? The resurrection of Jesus? Do you believe Allah sent Muhammed as the last Prophet? Do you believe in Hindu reincarnation?

Expect this thread to be abandoned soon.



Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:51 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7040
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1071
Thanked: 2064 times in 1656 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Evolution is wrong, and here's how i know
Quote:
An agnostic atheist is even worse than an atheist.


Worse in what way?

Less truthful? No, that's not the case. The more truthful position is to acknowledge the limits of our knowledge.

Less able to be attacked by theists such as yourself? Perhaps, and I suspect that's what rubs you the wrong way.

What you see as a strategy to avoid being wrong is exactly that. A strategy to avoid being wrong. (gasp!) Claiming a stance of certainty would be wrong(how dare we avoid being wrong!). There is humility in the agnostic position, and arrogance in taking a stance of certitude.

At the foundation of every post you make is disdain for the certain stance that atheism represents. How can someone justify a positive claim about the nonexistence of an entity such as god?(we understand this, ant) Your position crumbles when it's pointed out that at the heart of most atheists is agnosticism. If the position is taken because it is more truthful, what justification do you have to label it cowardly? If it is cowardly, then the brave position is the false position, rendering null the value of bravery as a virtue. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Sun Aug 17, 2014 3:21 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 704 times in 604 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Evolution is wrong, and here's how i know
Interbane wrote:
Of course you trust in God, but that doesn't mean it is God that answers your prayers. In order to determine if your prayers are a product of god or a product of coincidence, what would you do?

Hi Interbane, Unfortunately I'm a dunce when it comes to trying to upload files to my posts.I feel a bit hampered arguing in the abstract.In chapter 16 of Taylor's account titled;Timely supplies; he gives a few instances of answers to prayer in relation to problems and needs.As I've said, he is not giving an exhaustive account of such incidents.The account takes it out of the abstract.If we take a sample example given it should give an idea of just what we are talking about.

He recounts that a missionary there contracted virulent smallpox and Taylor who was a doctor, nursed him til he died. This obliged him to discard his clothes in case of infection.He had no money to purchase clothes so prayed to God about his predicament.At this juncture he says,there was a sudden arrival of a long lost trunk of clothes from Swatow where he had been previously.
So this happens precisely following his praying to God about not having or being able to purchase clothes. Coincidence?
You can explain it this way.But it's just one of many similar incidents.You can argue they are all coincidences.The biggest coincidence is that they happen precisely when he is praying for specific needs and problems, they have no way of meeting themselves.
He sets out to undertake going to China as a missionary depending on God to provide,and takes over the hospital and it's running costs in the same way.In fact when he was young an older minister basically told him his approach was a form of madness.
What I'm saying is that prayer is targeted and specific. Funds run out and they have no means themselves, of acquiring the necessary funds to feed the patients for instance. They pray to God.Almost invariably it is precisely at this moment when there is nothing left,no food or funds that funds or supplies arrive unexpectedly,humanly speaking.
So I think it is the multiplicity of such incidents that makes chance an unlikely provider.
Now you are saying that based on mathematical possibilities such an extraordinary series of coincidences is possible and you seem to want to explain it in this way.It seems much more reasonable to me to understand it as in fact Taylor does.There is a crisis,they pray and in remarkable ways are provided for just when everything has run out,and its an answer to prayer by God.
You raised other issues such as football teams praying for victory and of course one loses and one wins.It would require a study to go into this whole area in detail.And maybe I will try to address the kinds of objections you raise.
What is key is that it is a relationship between God the creator and man the created. You see this in Taylor's account.From a Christian standpoint our understanding is based on what we believe is revealed about God and man and what Jesus says for instance about prayer. So for instance "faith" itself cannot twist God's arm to do something contrary to his will and purpose as revealed in scripture.
But I see no need personally to conclude, that if I pray specifically about something and that need is met, that I should ascribe it to coincidence.
Just in brief on your "incredulity" point.My view is that Theism is much more credible and reasonable as explanator, in the way Lennox who is not anti science but pro science outlines.The materialist worldview shuts out this explanation a priori and requires thinking that philosophically make no sense to me.



Last edited by Flann 5 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.



The following user would like to thank Flann 5 for this post:
Interbane
Sun Aug 17, 2014 4:36 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4345
Location: NC
Thanks: 1837
Thanked: 1909 times in 1429 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Evolution is wrong, and here's how i know
ant wrote:
Quote:
but in the end your faith in materialism requires you to believe such things as I've mentioned.


Here are some of the "scientific" hypotheses (which by the way are not testable and have zero empirical evidence attached to them) atheism bestows epistemic faith upon. They are part atheism's beliefs:


1) "Many Worlds" hypothesis

2) Darwinism as a Universal mechansim

3) Cosmological Steady State Theory

4) A Universe from Nothing.

5) A Universe from something and nothing

6) Belief on the reliability of unprovable axioms (one of Robert T's favorits) :)

7) Epiphenomenalism (consciousness is an illusion)

eight) Rational beliefs and their reliability arising from chaotic, blind processes (atheists like Interbane and johnson have overcome nature on this one. now it's up to them to correct theism's irrational beliefs! because science is at odds with them! - yesiree, atheism's biggest ally is science!! )

9) The belief that absolute Truth does not exist (there is no absolute truth except the truth that there is no truth - signed: by your friendly neighborhood atheist)

10) The belief that objective purposelessness is intrinsic in nature (one of Johnson's beliefs)

11) The positive claim that there is no God* ( * however, most atheists back off most ANY positive claim when pressed.)

12) Everything will eventually be completely explained by materialism (A total statement of faith)


Here's yet another list of things that atheists are supposed to believe based on Ant's own twisted thinking. Consciousness is an illusion? Where on earth do you get this stuff?

Ant so very badly wants to believe atheists are fundamentalists and have religious tenets. But since he can't find any real atheists who think the way he wants them to, he has to make up their beliefs for them.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Sun Aug 17, 2014 4:50 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7040
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1071
Thanked: 2064 times in 1656 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Evolution is wrong, and here's how i know
Quote:
Timely supplies; he gives a few instances of answers to prayer in relation to problems and needs.As I've said, he is not giving an exhaustive account of such incidents.The account takes it out of the abstract.


Thanks for having the tenacity to reply Flann. I think we need a new topic, however.

Even a first hand testimony of what happened is an abstraction of the actual events. It would require corroboration. This is true not because I'm trying to be stubborn, but because anecdotes are untrustworthy unless corroborated. Any trial judge would tell you the same. A video testimony from prior to fulfillment of a miracle, plus video of the miracle itself, would convince a jury. A single anecdote would not. I know that renders Hudson's story untrustworthy. Fear not, if miracles truly do happen, in this day and age a novel James Hudson story will come into existence with video footage rather than testimony.

This still dodges the mathematical inevitability of rare coincidence. The rarity of coincidence is in part due to the specificity. He asked then something was provided. The specificity increases the rarity of the coincidence, but does not alter it categorically. Did you read the links I provided?

Quote:
But I see no need personally to conclude, that if I pray specifically about something and that need is met, that I should ascribe it to coincidence.


Of course, your beliefs are your own. You can ascribe the coincidence(regardless of specificity and rarity) to any god of your choosing, or to aliens, or to super-sentience from another dimension. You could ascribe it to a prank by mischievous technologists or unknown drug intake on your part. But for all the possible things you could ascribe coincidence to, the truth is more mundane.

Quote:
It would require a study to go into this whole area in detail.


Yes. If you were to study whether or not prayer is fulfilled, what sort of study would that entail? Would god be disdainful at being tested and not answer the prayers under observation?


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
Flann 5
Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:13 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Evolution is wrong, and here's how i know
.
Quote:
Conciousness is not an illusion, it is an emergent phenomenon.


Ahh yes. The ol' unexplained esplainer!

Good point, Interbane!

Edited
(I cant wait to get my lesson on how a snowflake is like consciousness)

Its pretty easy to understand that when complex systems interact you are bound to get something like consciousness.

We dont know exactly how it happened. All we know for certain is that it was random and blind.
God didnt do it.
Did I make a positive assertion here? Too bad. My beliefs need not carry any burden of proof.
I win!!

Whats really obvious here is that the atheist defends no beliefs because he claims in the end to be a humble agnostic after first arguing like an anti-theist.
Of course every human being on the planet has beliefs. Even when it comes to the existence or non existence of a God. Agnosticism is a total near useless wishy-washy position here.
And yet the atheist might say, "I am 99.8 percent certain there is no god"
Falling short of a positive claim (Richard Dawkins, is that you?) is a sneaky brilliant tactic!

The agnostic atheist has no beliefs except one that he throws around despite formal rules of evidence applicable to doxastic attitudes, which Dexter clearly denies and rejects for the sake of saving militant atheistic hides.

How slippery!

Yes, it doesnt get any more disingenuous than this.

All sarcasm aside, folks:
What ultimately turns me off about atheism is its brazen dishonesty and arrogance.
Not having anything objective to hang their hats on, new atheists eventually are cornered by their own beliefs
That and atheism eventually caves in on itself and as Nietzsche said, leads to Nihilism.
Men like Flew and Russel (two of the most notoriously aggressive atheists who ever lived) in the end attested to atheisms' inability to survive as a coherent depiction of reality.
But atheists conveniently leave this out of their sermons.



Last edited by ant on Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:56 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1761
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 729 times in 547 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Evolution is wrong, and here's how i know
ant wrote:
The agnostic atheist has no beliefs except one that he throws around despite formal rules of evidence applicable to doxastic attitudes, which Dexter clearly denies and rejects for the sake of saving militant atheistic hides.

How slippery!

Yes, it doesnt get any more disingenuous than this.


OK, so going by your own rules of evidence, do you believe in the claims of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism or not?

Surely you're not going to be a coward and dodge the question again?



Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:06 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Evolution is wrong, and here's how i know
Dexter wrote:
ant wrote:
The agnostic atheist has no beliefs except one that he throws around despite formal rules of evidence applicable to doxastic attitudes, which Dexter clearly denies and rejects for the sake of saving militant atheistic hides.

How slippery!

Yes, it doesnt get any more disingenuous than this.


OK, so going by your own rules of evidence, do you believe in the claims of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism or not?

Surely you're not going to be a coward and dodge the question again?


Darwin,

Ive already answered this question here on BT before.

?



Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:00 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7040
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1071
Thanked: 2064 times in 1656 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Evolution is wrong, and here's how i know
More graffiti. I feel like I'm feeding the troll.

Quote:
I cant wait to get my lesson on how a snowflake is like consciousness


They aren't alike, but if they actually were, I'm sure you'd accept the lesson with an open mind.

Quote:
Its pretty easy to understand that when complex systems interact you are bound to get something like consciousness.


I'm glad it's easy for one of us. If you're really that smart, try explaining it. Show that you have the requisite intellectual humility to have assimilated your opponents argument well enough to spit it back at him. Mocking aside, I wish you'd make the attempt.

Quote:
We dont know exactly how it happened. All we know for certain is that it was random and blind.


That's your strawman.

Quote:
Whats really obvious here is that the atheist defends no beliefs


Atheists defend beliefs all the time. That's another strawman. The beliefs they won't claim certainty towards, such as one of many hypotheses for the origin of the universe, are beyond our ability to know at this time. You mock people for not claiming confidence for ideas that do not warrant confidence.

Quote:
because he claims in the end to be a humble agnostic after first arguing like an anti-theist.


Only because the theist thinks he's got the right hypothesis, regardless of everything else. If half the world were zealotous followers of transpermia, I'd argue against them just as strongly. Not because I have the answer, but because their position is unjustified. The justified position is that we don't know.

Quote:
The agnostic atheist has no beliefs


What's this, the sixth time you've repeated this same line? I have beliefs, including some beliefs that I'd die for. Why the hell doesn't this click? Stop preaching this false straw man.

Quote:
Not having anything objective to hang their hats on, new atheists eventually are cornered by their own beliefs


They would be cornered, sure, if your straw men were real. Your issue with atheists is the ontologically positive claim. Theists suffer from the same, an ontologically positive claim. Why attack atheism for the same crime as theism? If they are guilty, so are you.

Quote:
Men like Flew and Russel (two of the most notoriously aggressive atheists who ever lived) in the end attested to atheisms' inability to survive as a coherent depiction of reality.


An in your confirmation bias, you give these two men more credence than hundreds of other brilliant men with opposite opinions. Atheism doesn't depict reality. Philosophical naturalism depicts reality. It is coherent, and it is atheistic. But the two are not identical. One is a component of the other.

Quote:
What ultimately turns me off about atheism is its brazen dishonesty and arrogance.


If atheism is dishonest, then so is theism. If atheism is arrogant, then so is theism. The fault is mirrored. The real issue you have is that most atheists are agnostic atheists. You simply can't stand the fact that a strong stance isn't taken. Not that a strong stance is justified, but it leaves you without anything to attack. So you fabricate strawmen post after post.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:44 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1761
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 729 times in 547 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Evolution is wrong, and here's how i know
ant wrote:
Dexter wrote:
ant wrote:
The agnostic atheist has no beliefs except one that he throws around despite formal rules of evidence applicable to doxastic attitudes, which Dexter clearly denies and rejects for the sake of saving militant atheistic hides.

How slippery!

Yes, it doesnt get any more disingenuous than this.


OK, so going by your own rules of evidence, do you believe in the claims of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism or not?

Surely you're not going to be a coward and dodge the question again?


Darwin,

Ive already answered this question here on BT before.

?


Just spit it out. We might avoid repeating the same thing a hundred more times.



Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:23 am
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank