Author Topic: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread  (Read 47719 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #348 on: December 18, 2009, 10:37:47 PM »
On the issue of "a mind", I addressed that in some detail in the following thread over the last 7 months;

No souls, no way to get to an afterlife
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=6546

While the title gives away the main conclusions, it also addresses the way human minds work and fail, and shows clearly that our minds can't be used as a template to explain any incorporeal awareness that never had a corpus.

Examples that demonstrate that mind/body dualism is a false split include people who have brain traumas (strokes, accidents, epileptics who have had their corpus callosum severed, ...), the effect of drugs (alcohol, narcotics, as well as proscribed medications of various sorts), the 1:1 correlation of stories from people who experience OBEs and NDEs inadvertently and other people who induce those same effects by use of high-G forces in airplanes or in centrifuges.  Each example -- from the ones I've given and the others that have been discussed in that thread -- can be examined impartially without presupposing how things are in reality.

Yet if anyone, for any reason, wants to say that there are incorporeal and aware minds, they have to demonstrate them in reality and not by assertion or by abstract reasoning.

The argument becomes harder when the assertion that special incorporeal and aware minds -- never having bodies -- are said to exist while those making similar claims about other special incorporeal and aware minds are dismissed out of hand.  If one set is legitimate, then the other sets are too.  Yet, without an expression in reality, there's no reason to suppose any of them.



Additional references;

Substance dualism (QualiaSoup)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA[/youtube]

Quote
Since ancient times, many attempts have been made to account for the relationship between mind and body. This video examines the inherent flaws in the philosophy of substance dualism, along with some of the fallacious reasoning often put forward to support it.

A closer look at the split brain

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfGwsAdS9Dc[/youtube]

A look at pre-conscious decision-making, as posted by EvolvedAtheist:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg3hDzkmPww[/youtube]
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline Levan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #349 on: December 18, 2009, 10:38:44 PM »
When  you  are  sad,  is  your  brain  sad,  or  are  "YOU"  sad.

Kusu kusu.

Your brain, which produces your sense of self, is sad.

Offline GetMeThere

Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #350 on: December 18, 2009, 10:41:26 PM »
And that's the point I offerred to debate Majesty on: demonstrate that there is a NEED for a god regarding the existence we now see.

Why haven't any of WLC's opponents used that approach?

I think the simple answer is that, almost subconsciously, many of his debaters feel pressured to support the "there is no god" claim. WLC even SETS THIS UP in almost all debates, by completely shifting the burden to "atheists," and insisting they must "show there is no god." He quotes a published philosophical definition (which I'm willing to bet is a thirty year old source) of atheism as the claim that "there is no god."

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #351 on: December 18, 2009, 10:47:55 PM »
[ snipped parts I'm in general agreement with ]

And that's the point I offerred to debate Majesty on: demonstrate that there is a NEED for a god regarding the existence we now see. I don't see how such a demonstration could even BEGIN--and so I think most of the substance of the debate SO FAR is superfluous. I'll still say that Majesty has no significant BASIS for his entire presentation, and so it's superfluous to refute it point by point.

Yep.  The biggest issue I see with any theist is the existence of earnest theists who disagree fervently with them.  Once that is acknowledged, the theist has to then demonstrate unambiguously that any specific theistic claim (not necessarily equal to a religious claim) is correct yet can't be gotten to as well or better by non-theistic methods.

If they can't, then the theistic claims are at best layers on top of what we already know is correct.  I'm thinking of the cherry picking Christians do with the Bible, for example.  Love your neighbor is fine, but ignore the part where it's required that you slaughter them for their disbelief in your specific creed.
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline Backspace

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1274
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • IXNAY
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #352 on: December 18, 2009, 10:55:59 PM »
Darn, I'll admit I was hoping Majesty would present a comeback with some "teeth." But alas, his bravado turned into an even weaker rehash of KCA, spinning his wheels in dogmatic quicksand. Bummer.


There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher could not express it.
-- Bernie Katz

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Darwins +406/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #353 on: December 18, 2009, 11:51:02 PM »
He's getting more and more incoherent, but his D'Souza-class ego is still operating at full power.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Agamemnon

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4940
  • Darwins +15/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #354 on: December 19, 2009, 12:19:05 AM »
I just finished reading your last response. It ought to be quite humbling for Majesty, but I seriously doubt that there is any capacity for humility in him. You've done a fine job, kcrady. I hope I never end up on the wrong end of a debate with you!
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.  --Bertrand Russell

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #355 on: December 19, 2009, 01:12:53 AM »
Home Forum  Advantage  like  i  said.  You  can  tell  it  is  HFA  when  a  KC  mentions  two  expansion  models  that  are  BOTH  just highly  speculatative  than  anything  that  i  said,  yet  no  one  calls  him  out  on  that,  but  are  quick  to  call  me  out  on  my  so  called  "assumptions".  It  is  a  big  double  standard.  But  thats  ok  tho.  I  know  that  not  only  am  i  making  my  case  for  the  kalam  but  i  am  also  refuting  his.  I  dont  care  that  you  cheerleaders  are  on  here  rooting  for  KC.  You  people  are  making  it  seem  as  if  KC  is making  the  BOMB  case  against  the  Kalam,  im  sorry  but  i  just  dont  see  it.  But  whatever  lol.  The  guy  can  make  all  the  assumptions  in  the  world  in  his  argument,  and  no  one  says  a damn  thing  about  it.  But  when  i  make the  slightest  one,  ohhhhh  my  goodness  Majesty  has  a  argument  full  of  assumptions!!!!  What  kind  of  CRAP  is  that??  But  its  ok  people,  it's  all  good.

But  yeah...GetMeThere.......i  accept......pm  me  whenever  you  are  ready  man.  LETS  GOOO

Offline Grogan

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • I Deny God
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #356 on: December 19, 2009, 01:35:55 AM »
Home Forum  Advantage  like  i  said.  You  can  tell  it  is  HFA  when  a  KC  mentions  two  expansion  models  that  are  BOTH  just highly  speculatative  than  anything  that  i  said,  yet  no  one  calls  him  out  on  that,  but  are  quick  to  call  me  out  on  my  so  called  "assumptions".  It  is  a  big  double  standard.  But  thats  ok  tho.  I  know  that  not  only  am  i  making  my  case  for  the  kalam  but  i  am  also  refuting  his.  I  dont  care  that  you  cheerleaders  are  on  here  rooting  for  KC.  You  people  are  making  it  seem  as  if  KC  is making  the  BOMB  case  against  the  Kalam,  im  sorry  but  i  just  dont  see  it.  But  whatever  lol.  The  guy  can  make  all  the  assumptions  in  the  world  in  his  argument,  and  no  one  says  a damn  thing  about  it.  But  when  i  make the  slightest  one,  ohhhhh  my  goodness  Majesty  has  a  argument  full  of  assumptions!!!!  What  kind  of  CRAP  is  that??  But  its  ok  people,  it's  all  good.

But  yeah...GetMeThere.......i  accept......pm  me  whenever  you  are  ready  man.  LETS  GOOO

stop it.

This quote below is baseless, unsubstantiated claims, and nothing more. During the course of your debate, you did nothing to demonstrate these claims as factual and supportive.

Do you agree or disagree?

Quote from: Magesty Wrote in the Debate
The  only  energy  that  existed  in  the  universe  before  the  big  bang  was  the  energy/power  of  God.  One  of  the  attributes  that  i  forgot  to  mention  in  my  opening  statement  was  that  God  is  all  powerful  (as  I’m  sure  you  all  know,  by  definition),  and  as  a  powerful  Deity  God  converted  his  immaterial  energy  to  material  energy.  My opponent  is  asking  the  question  as  if  it  is  a  hard  issue  for  a  being  with unlimited power  and unlimited  resources  to  do  this  "easy"  task  of  converting  its  energy  as  it  see's  fit.

1. The only energy that existed in the universe was/is the energy and/or power of a god ( - Also, which god again? I'm unsure as to which god, or gods, or pantheon you are referring to---Actually, you specify God - meaning the god of your bible right? That's also entirely unsubstantiated.)  You provide no evidence to back up this claim.  

2. God is all powerful - You didn't define or prove this.

3. The process you attribute to your god is a process that involves him commuting and converting immaterial energy to material energy.  You prove neither the need for a god to exercise such a process, nor do you prove the existence of immaterial energy. There is no such thing.

There is a difference between a speculative model and one that implausible and impossible.  You recognize that neither align with your preconceived (and immovable) conclusion, therefore you dismiss them based on your assessment of their probability and viability.

They conflict with your world view, so they are dismissed. This has nothing to do with the board that this is posted on.

« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 01:37:32 AM by Grogan »
Quote from: kenn
You want to understand God and the world around you through science and logic alone and, because you cannot come up with a "reasonable" explanation for what they ate when leaving the ark, you dismiss it.

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Darwins +406/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #357 on: December 19, 2009, 02:13:06 AM »
Home Forum  Advantage  like  i  said.  You  can  tell  it  is  HFA  when  a  KC  mentions  two  expansion  models  that  are  BOTH  just highly  speculatative  than  anything  that  i  said,  yet  no  one  calls  him  out  on  that,  but  are  quick  to  call  me  out  on  my  so  called  "assumptions".

I never claimed that any of the models I cited was Da Troof.  All I said about them was that they are A) Plausible, and B) Accepted as such by qualified experts in the field of cosmology, and they are.  Are they also disputed by other qualified experts?  Sure, but I never claimed otherwise.  All I have to do to bust your argument is provide a single example of a plausible naturalistic model.  Your claim is that a naturalistic model of origins is impossible.  All I have to do is show that naturalistic models are possible, and I debunk that claim.  I don't have to discover the Theory of Everything and collect my Nobel Prize.

Your claims, OTOH, are all about supernatural magic and "immaterial energy" and the Holy Spirit and other assorted unsubstantiated wishful thinking.  And you're claiming all-caps certainty that your claims are True.  It's not a double-standard because we're not doing the same thing.

So, are we at the inevitable point where we both declare victory and you start your next debate, or do you want to continue?

Edit: BTW, there are Christians on this Forum, I'm sure they could be rounded up to provide you a cheering section.  Try poking around the Mailbag area.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 02:17:23 AM by kcrady »
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline 13UnderTheGun

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #358 on: December 19, 2009, 02:33:53 AM »

Their god has to hide behind the immaterial wall in order to never be exposed as shadows and myth.

He has no choice.


Sort of reminds me of the old man (wizard) in The Wizard Of Oz.  Maybe he should've hid behind the immaterial wall instead of a velvet curtian.


The more we learn about the heavens, the more we realize that Heaven is imaginary.


LOOK GOD DOES EXIST AND IF U CANT SEE THAT THEN YOUR A STUPID RETARDED IDIOT WHO IS AN ATHIEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Offline Levan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #359 on: December 19, 2009, 03:07:14 AM »
Home Forum  Advantage  like  i  said.  You  can  tell  it  is  HFA  when  a  KC  mentions  two  expansion  models  that  are  BOTH  just highly  speculatative  than  anything  that  i  said,  yet  no  one  calls  him  out  on  that,  but  are  quick  to  call  me  out  on  my  so  called  "assumptions".  It  is  a  big  double  standard.  But  thats  ok  tho.  I  know  that  not  only  am  i  making  my  case  for  the  kalam  but  i  am  also  refuting  his.  I  dont  care  that  you  cheerleaders  are  on  here  rooting  for  KC.  You  people  are  making  it  seem  as  if  KC  is making  the  BOMB  case  against  the  Kalam,  im  sorry  but  i  just  dont  see  it.  But  whatever  lol.  The  guy  can  make  all  the  assumptions  in  the  world  in  his  argument,  and  no  one  says  a damn  thing  about  it.  But  when  i  make the  slightest  one,  ohhhhh  my  goodness  Majesty  has  a  argument  full  of  assumptions!!!!  What  kind  of  CRAP  is  that??  But  its  ok  people,  it's  all  good.

Fuuuh...

I've been trying not to really root for either of you in particular...

Of course, I find it incredibly hard to do so, given your arrogant tough guy attitude...

But either way, you don't have to view the commentary thread. That's all it is - a commentary. The real debate is in a different topic, and I suppose you could expose all of kcrady's assumptions there. Nothing anyone says here will affect the debate in any way.

Don't let what people are saying in the commentary ruin your arguments, Majesty. Good luck with your rebuttal.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #360 on: December 19, 2009, 04:35:02 AM »

Quote
Fuuuh...

I've been trying not to really root for either of you in particular...

Of course, I find it incredibly hard to do so, given your arrogant tough guy attitude...

But either way, you don't have to view the commentary thread. That's all it is - a commentary. The real debate is in a different topic, and I suppose you could expose all of kcrady's assumptions there. Nothing anyone says here will affect the debate in any way.

Don't let what people are saying in the commentary ruin your arguments, Majesty. Good luck with your rebuttal.

Good  advice...thank you

Offline Levan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #361 on: December 19, 2009, 04:40:20 AM »
Of course, I'm not saying that he does have baseless assertions.

It's hard staying neutral...

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #362 on: December 19, 2009, 05:30:02 AM »
Home Forum  Advantage  like  i  said.  You  can  tell  it  is  HFA  when  a  KC  mentions  two  expansion  models  that  are  BOTH  just highly  speculatative  than  anything  that  i  said,  yet  no  one  calls  him  out  on  that,  but  are  quick  to  call  me  out  on  my  so  called  "assumptions".  It  is  a  big  double  standard.  But  thats  ok  tho.  I  know  that  not  only  am  i  making  my  case  for  the  kalam  but  i  am  also  refuting  his.  I  dont  care  that  you  cheerleaders  are  on  here  rooting  for  KC.  You  people  are  making  it  seem  as  if  KC  is making  the  BOMB  case  against  the  Kalam,  im  sorry  but  i  just  dont  see  it.  But  whatever  lol.  The  guy  can  make  all  the  assumptions  in  the  world  in  his  argument,  and  no  one  says  a damn  thing  about  it.  But  when  i  make the  slightest  one,  ohhhhh  my  goodness  Majesty  has  a  argument  full  of  assumptions!!!!  What  kind  of  CRAP  is  that??  But  its  ok  people,  it's  all  good.

But  yeah...GetMeThere.......i  accept......pm  me  whenever  you  are  ready  man.  LETS  GOOO

Maybe this is the given/new problem. Many people here are aware that brane cosmology is speculative. However, you're wrong in stating that kcrady is assuming that brane cosmology (or any other speculative hypothesis concerning an underlying reality) is true. He has explicitly stated that we don't know if they're true or not. That's not the issue at stake, however; all that kcrady needs to do is blow apart the false dichotomy inherent in the KCA, to whit:

The underlying reality that engendered our Cosmos is either
1. entirely in accordance with the generalizations and principles that govern the Cosmos itself (time, conservation of mass/energy, increasing entropy, etc.); or
2. magic.

You have asserted with certainty that it's not 1, therefore it must be 2. The notion of an option 3 (an underlying reality that operates according to a somewhat different set of principles than those we can readily observe in our four-dimensional space-time) you apparently discount for no discernible reason at all.

Sure, it's speculative, but kcrady never claimed otherwise; what you don't seem to realise or accept is that it is no more speculative than 2. Your apparent basis for summarily discounting it is that science cannot observe anything before the Big Bang, therefore, option 3 cannot exist. Which is clearly a canard; you don't get to claim that things "cannot exist" merely because you can't observe them; you must provide arguments that militate against the possibility of their existence, and merely saying "there are problems with them" (e.g. our inability to observe them) does not, on its own, militate against the possibility of brane cosmology.

You thereby assert 2 as a certainty (without even showing that it is plausible, which is a serious flaw, given that things like brane cosmology are at least sufficiently plausible that they are tentatively accepted by many cosmologists). Double standards? Not really. Kcrady doesn't make the mistake of asserting brane cosmology as a certainty. Can you see the difference?

Unfortunately, you've shored up option 2 with a BIG whopping assumption that is fatal to your argument - namely the concept of a "disembodied mind". Everything we know about the mind, to date, illustrates that what we call the "mind", a rather fuzzy abstract concept in itself, is contingent upon a physical brain. Evidence for this is the profound changes of personality undergone by brain-damaged patients, the loss of "mental" faculties caused by brain damage, and "split personalities" caused by the severing of the corpus callosum - as well as demonstrations that the decision-making process can be observed in the lab seconds before the subject is consciously aware of making a decision.

So far, it's:

"Mind" is contingent on physical structure: 10000
"Mind" is immaterial and independent of physical structure: 0

This large, and growing, body of evidence militates against the notion of "disembodied minds". Yet you assert as a CERTAINTY that an immaterial mind can even exist. It's pure wishful thinking. And on this and this alone, the KCA falls flat, though it may serve to gull credulous fantasists into falling for it (people want to believe in an immaterial mind, as they can't readily face the fact that their own mind won't survive the physical 'death' of their own brain).

Further, you don't seem to understand the terms of the argument. kcrady doesn't need to show that the KCA is wrong (though he has shown, your denials notwithstanding, that the proposed characteristics of your "disembodied mind" are internally contradictory and thereby self-refuting). He merely needs to show that it isn't the only conclusion or inference one can derive from the current state of affairs. Which he has done.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 05:57:21 AM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Levan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #363 on: December 19, 2009, 06:00:57 AM »
Majesty, you misunderstand kcrady's point.

What he is saying is not that "supernatural claims are always wrong".

What he is saying, however, is that "supernatural claims have been wrong so many times that they should not be looked to as a credible answer".

I'm sure that this will be brought up by kcrady soon.

Offline Levan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #364 on: December 19, 2009, 06:16:26 AM »
Also, looking at your new post, I just had to comment. It's probably because I hate Ray Comfort.

Unless  someone  searches  everywhere  in  the  world,  there  is  no  way  to  tell  whether  a  Sasquatch  exist.  If  i  ask  my  opponent  has  he  ever  been  to  a  cave  in  China,  and  my  opponents  answer  is  no.  Then  it  logically  follows  that  my  opponent  doesn't  know  whether  a  Sasquatch  is  living  in  a  cave  in  China.  And  my  opponent  is  right,  the  footprints  that  he  used  in his  example  COULD  be  a hoax.  But  they  COULD  also  be  real  footprints.  My  opponent  is  failing  to  exercise  the  possibilities  of  both  possible  answers.  My  opponent  just  simply  has  to  withhold  judgment  unless  he  can  prove  exclusively  that  a  Sasquatch  doesn't  exit. So  i  am  not  moved by  his  "counter-example"

I have a feeling that you don't understand the burden of proof. Nor do you understand the meaning of Atheism. Atheism is the lack of a belief, not the belief that there is no God.

This is the Ray Comfort "God doesn't believe in atheists". I don't think that William Lane Craig would approve of this sad argument.

Offline Levan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #365 on: December 19, 2009, 06:23:38 AM »
Back again. You know what, Majesty... I'm going to have to quit being neutral now.

Your newest post has:

1) misunderstood kcrady's arguments/points,
2) misunderstood the burden of proof, and
3) given bad arguments in general.

You could reply to this, but you aren't required to. The Ray Comfort reference just tipped me over into actually expressing my rooting for kcrady, however.

EDIT: I would like to go on and post my own reply to it here, but I'm sure kcrady is already capable of doing so. As such, I will only post some sort of reply to it here after kcrady does his/hers, addressing what, in my opinion, was missed.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 06:31:54 AM by Levan »

Offline I am become relevant

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #366 on: December 19, 2009, 06:50:20 AM »
I'm neutral to both argument's presented up until the point 'mind' came in. Majesty, you truly believe that a first cause would have a 'mind/emotions/etc.' and still be timeless unchanging?
I is back.

I'm a muslim.
No I won't email you a bomb if you tick me off, but only because I don't know how to.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #367 on: December 19, 2009, 06:55:01 AM »
I have a feeling that you don't understand the burden of proof. Nor do you understand the meaning of Atheism. Atheism is the lack of a belief, not the belief that there is no God.

This is the Ray Comfort "God doesn't believe in atheists". I don't think that William Lane Craig would approve of this sad argument.

No  Levan,  i  know  all  to  well  about  the  burden   of  proof.  The  traditional  definition  of  atheist  has  been  one  that  REJECT  the  existence  of  God.  Or  one  that  claims  that  God  does  not  exist.  And  i  have  encountered  MANY people  in  my  dialogues  that  have  taken  that  stance.  It  wasn't  until  the  New  Age Atheist  movement  that  they  have  taken  the  stance  of  "lack  of  belief",  or  "God  could  exist,  i  just  dont  believe  that  he  does"  (for  whatever  reasons).  Me  personally,  in  that  case,  the  burden  of  proof  isn't  on  me,  because  i  BELIEVE  in  God,  i  admit  that  i  could  be  wrong,  but  i  feel  as  tho  the  evidence  is  overwhelming  that  a  God  exist...

And  furthermore,  you  say  "Atheism  is  lack  of  belief,  not  the  belief  that  there  is  no  God"  which  is  that  same  thing  being  said  in  a  different  way.  Basically,  Atheism  is  lack  of  a  belief  in  a  type  of  deity,  which  sums  up  both  things  that  you  said.

And  finally,  when  you  say  "Atheism  is  lack  of  belief",  what  is  the  difference  between  an  atheist  and  an  agnostic  then,  because  an  agnostic  lack  a belief  also.  There  is  no  difference,  but  yet  both  are  given  different  titles.  Thats  because  the  definition  of  Atheist  USED  to  be  one  that  claims  there  is  no  God,  and  thats  how  an  atheist  and  agnostic  could  be  distinguished  back  in  the  day.

So  it  is  YOU  who  are  mistaken,  not  me.

Offline Levan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #368 on: December 19, 2009, 07:05:39 AM »
And  finally,  when  you  say  "Atheism  is  lack  of  belief",  what  is  the  difference  between  an  atheist  and  an  agnostic  then,  because  an  agnostic  lack  a belief  also.

Another Ray Comfort mistake. You forget that there are both agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists.

I need to go take a shower now, and the shower is a twenty-minute drive away. I'll be back in a while.

EDIT: Btw, if anyone wants to take a stab at this while I'm gone, you're free to.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #369 on: December 19, 2009, 07:05:53 AM »
Majesty, you misunderstand kcrady's point.

What he is saying is not that "supernatural claims are always wrong".

What he is saying, however, is that "supernatural claims have been wrong so many times that they should not be looked to as a credible answer".

I'm sure that this will be brought up by kcrady soon.

This  is  just  to  silly.  If  he  is  not  saying  that  supernatural  claims  are  ALWAYS  wrong,  i  sure  as  hell  didn't  see  one  time  where  he  admited  that  the  supernatural  claims  were  right.  You  are  just  trying  so  hard  to  find  little  pieces  of  information  that  can  lead  you  to  get  on  his  side  somehow,  and  it  is  becoming  to  obvious.  And  i  already  answered  what  you  have  there  in  quotations.  Just  because  you  can  explain  an  event  by  natural  causes  DOESN'T  mean  that  there  is  STILL  not  a  God  that  placed  those  same natural  laws  in  place,  and  we  have  evidence  that  would  suggest  that  it  did.  So  once  again,  nice  try,  you  might  as  well  grab  a  pom  pom  like  the  rest  of  them  because  you  are  starting  to  cheerlead  now.


Offline Levan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #370 on: December 19, 2009, 07:08:16 AM »
Well, that's what I'm doing now that you're delving to the level of Ray Comfort.

I'll be back soon, bye!

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #371 on: December 19, 2009, 07:11:28 AM »
Another Ray Comfort mistake. You forget that there are both agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists.

I need to go take a shower now, and the shower is a twenty-minute drive away. I'll be back in a while.

EDIT: Btw, if anyone wants to take a stab at this while I'm gone, you're free to.

Exactly.  But  why  is  it  necesarry  to  call  it  agnostic-atheist  when  everyone  that  lacks  a  belief  in  God  can  just  be  an  agnostic?  Both  terms  now mean  lacking  a  belief  in  a  deity.  But  that  was  the  definition  of  agnostic  from  day  one.  Oh  well..

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #372 on: December 19, 2009, 07:14:13 AM »
I'm neutral to both argument's presented up until the point 'mind' came in. Majesty, you truly believe that a first cause would have a 'mind/emotions/etc.' and still be timeless unchanging?

This  is  also  silly.  I  already  distinguished  the  difference  between  God's  changing  temperment  and  his  unchanging  nature.  Unless  you  can  show  how they  still  contradict,  why  ask  the  question?

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #373 on: December 19, 2009, 07:17:51 AM »
Hey  KC,  later  on  today  i  will  be  making  my  closing  arguments.  I  invite  you to  do  the  same.  I  challenge  whoever  else  that  wants  to  step  up  to  the  plate  next.  ANYBODY.  I  prefer  jazzman,  cuz  he  has  been  talkin  reallll  greasy  these  past  few  days,  and  its  time  for  him  to  put  up  or  SHUT up.

Offline I am become relevant

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #374 on: December 19, 2009, 07:45:15 AM »
This  is  also  silly.  I  already  distinguished  the  difference  between  God's  changing  temperment  and  his  unchanging  nature.  Unless  you  can  show  how they  still  contradict,  why  ask  the  question?

I don't think you have distinguished quite that. You just asserted this without actually explaining what you mean exactly.
Are you saying that certain aspects of god change while his nature  :? remains unchanging. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by this. Any definition of change that I kind find or think off seems to involve time.
I is back.

I'm a muslim.
No I won't email you a bomb if you tick me off, but only because I don't know how to.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #375 on: December 19, 2009, 08:01:30 AM »
Dunning-Kruger effect

[/thread]

You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #376 on: December 19, 2009, 08:26:10 AM »
why  is  it  necesarry  to  call  it  agnostic-atheist  when  everyone  that  lacks  a  belief  in  God  can  just  be  an  agnostic?  Both  terms  now mean  lacking  a  belief  in  a  deity.  But  that  was  the  definition  of  agnostic  from  day  one.  Oh  well..

The fact that you're having to ask this indicates to me that you're not nearly as well-informed about the subject as it seems you'd like to think you are.

"Atheism" and "theism" are about belief, whereas "agnosticism" and "gnosticism" are about knowledge, meaning that, contrary to what you and most laypeople think, they're not exclusive terms.  Most people on this site (including me) would categorize themselves as "agnostic atheists", meaning that while we don't claim to know for certain one way or the other, we still lack theistic belief simply because we have never found any argument in favor of the existence of deities to be convincing.  A smaller group would be the "gnostic atheists", those who say they know for certain that deities do not exist.  Conversely, of course, you have the agnostic theists and gnostic theists as well.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn