Author Topic: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.  (Read 5671 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
« Reply #87 on: July 20, 2011, 12:11:56 PM »
I'd prefer to make a clean start. If you have a question you think is still relevant, would you mind posting it to the other thread?

So you're going to ignore everything you've done here and expect everyone to carry over the discussions you avoided responsibility for elsewhere?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
« Reply #88 on: July 20, 2011, 01:07:06 PM »
It's clear we're not communicating very well. I'm not trying to be evasive. It's frustrating for me to say over and over again that I will not and cannot prove to you that God exists, then read half a dozen post that say, "But you haven't said anything to prove god exists!"

I'm starting a new thread. It's title is "I will not prove God exists" Come on over.

Omen (and anyone else), if you have an objection to something I've said that cannot be reduced to "But you haven't shown me why God exists!" then come on over.

this is such nonsense.   You want to make claims and then when asked for evidence of your claims, you run away and insist that you won't prove that the basis for your claims doesn't exist.  Congratulations, you've just become one more tedious theist who thinks that they are right and has no evidence for any such thing. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
« Reply #89 on: July 20, 2011, 02:02:45 PM »
If you're only moving toward a deep, black nothingness, what is worth striving for?

That's a long list! Do you want a few examples so you have something to work with (I hope not for preaching), or is it sufficient for you to know that I find a multitude of things worth striving for?

Logically, I find the finite more valuable than eternity, to be honest.

Eternal afterlife is logically indisguishable from eternal nothingness. Can you imagine how this seems logical to me? 

Edi: I appreciate that your belief system is somewhat off thread topic, but we were talking about you, via my questions. I'll drop it if you want, but new threads aren't what you need right now.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2011, 02:05:42 PM by Ambassador Pony »
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 screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
« Reply #90 on: July 20, 2011, 04:29:25 PM »
What about you screwtape? What was your journey to atheism? How come your not as smart or self-assured as AP?

To answer the second question first, I was not fortunate to have been raised in Quebec, though I did attend school in France briefly as a child.

As for my journey, I was raised in a casually Catholic family until we had to move in with my grandparents.  Then it was all catechisms, communions and confirmations.  I knew too much science to ever be a literalist and once I actually read what was in the bible[1] that pulled the rug out from under any faith I had.  Talking snakes?  World wide floods?  Genocide?  Babel?  PREPOSTEROUS!

I think I was misunderstood there. My point is that history seems to lead to atheism. Why wouldn't all religious ideas fall by the wayside the same as Ra, illness as demonic possession and literal 6-day creationism? I helping you out, here.

Evolution, in two ways.  first way: the brain has evolved to see agency in everything.  That is why every knucklhead who encounters something they cannot immediately explain, they attribute the cause to an invisible person, be it ghost, angel or god. 

Second way: religions and religious concepts evolve.  The god in which you believe does not resemble anything of the yhwh worshipped by pre-exilic hebrews. As the old religious ideas are mercilessly shot to pieces by new knowledge, the ideas are re-interpreted to fit.  Old religion[2]: world was created by a superguy in 6 days.  New religion: it was metaphorical.  Old religion: yhwh was paret of a pantheon of god called Elohim.  He was one of the sons of El and his wife was Asherah.  New religion: since yhwh apparently got his ass handed to him by Marduk, and that is just not thinkable, it must be that yhwh controls Marduk and used him as a way to punish us.  Yeah, that's the ticket.  Old religion: lightning is an expression of god's anger.  New religion: lightning rods are a part of god's plan.

So religion as an entity is a slippery bastard that expliots the brain's functionality and is not easy to end.  I think if we had a selection mechanism - like sterilizing the religious before they could breed - we could eliminate it relatively quickly.

screwtape missed my earlier posts, so I'll reiterate. I'm not attempting to prove that God exists.

I got that part.  But thanks for making sure.

I would like to defend the self-consistency of theism to remove that as an obstacle for anyone seeking to learn whether there is a god.

see above.

 1. catholics are not big on bible reading
 2. and that of modern illiterates and savages
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
« Reply #91 on: July 20, 2011, 04:41:32 PM »
There are a thousand French schools outside of Qu├ębec, Screw.

 
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 ablestmage

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
« Reply #92 on: October 02, 2011, 01:18:07 PM »
Is it too late to make a complete douchebag of myself responding to OP?
I really need to check that Gmail more often, apparently.

Offline EV

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
  • Darwins +52/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Philosopher, Atheist, Musician, Philanthropist
    • My Website
Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
« Reply #93 on: October 04, 2011, 10:44:08 AM »
Is it too late to make a complete douchebag of myself responding to OP?

Hi James, welcome back.

Feel free to respond, that's why I emailed you anyway :)

I really need to check that Gmail more often, apparently.
Haha, it has been like 3 months... That's pretty poor ;)

regards,

Elliot (perpetrator of OP...)
Quote
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
- Philosopher John Stuart Mill, from a Parliamentary debate (May 31, 1866);

Offline ablestmage

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
« Reply #94 on: October 05, 2011, 04:17:32 PM »
Quote
Hi James, welcome back.

It's Mike, as the first initial M was a poorly-planned (not foreshadowing, not foreshadowing) attempt to make a pseudo-pen-name (a-la-M-Night), but seems to have instead come across instead as an honorific than an initial.

I've changed web hosts and have yet to re-up the page OP references, which, as I explained in another thread, was a prior version I'd assembled initially as a draft version. I then decided a better angle was to create a newer version as a YouTube pause-to-read-style video (since the original WWGHA video was a YT video, I decided a YT response would be more appropriate), and made the linked missive obselete/oldver. I'm not certain how OP obtained the link posted, since it wasn't linked in the video description.


I will confess also that I've conceded on the point I made regarding sampling size (00:24) although I don't particularly comprehend why exactly it should be conceded (as explained in the video's description section).

I think its concession more or less boils down to a personal philosophy on whether a given survey sampling size is a credible indication of whether "3 out of 4 doctors" think one way or another, and whether "from those we surveyed" need or not be appended to the claim.

There seem, to me, to be too many different ways of interpreting survey results, that I am far less likely to trust survey results as a genuine indicator of popular opinion unless an overwhelming/landslide majority of the people, of whom the assertion is made, participate.

To suggest a sampling size of 1,100 doctors adequately represents ~4.6 million doctors seems preposterous to me, but several self-proclaimed statistics experts assured me this sampling size is perfectly healthy to make such leaps. I decided not to press it, although I still disagree with it.

Quote
Feel free to respond, that's why...

I think one thing I failed to communicate is that the response is generally a discussion-provoking response, rather than a strict allow me to inform you of the Truth so please adjust your mind accordingly type response. I think too few Christians adopt this angle, and too few of those interesting in hashing it out with silly Christians are willing to adopt the idea they are discussing matters with a brainstormer type and instead prefer to believe they are battling wits with a This Is How It Is type and respond accordingly.

I have long been a Devil's Advocate sort, on occasion to excess, to side with the dissenting view interminably. Before I knew Christ, I believed (although unresearched/unverified) that this kind of personality was unwelcome in the church, so was turned away by my own presumptions -- when instead I think you will find quite a healthy congregation of those willing to momentarily suspend a staunch position on scripture to entertain an idea, such as that (hypothetically) perhaps, "Love is a decision, not an emotion" and then defend or refute the position without resorting to small arms fire, as it were.

A significant portion of my response is a criticism of the WWGHA video's technique and roundabout style of presenting its position, whereby relying on emotionally-driven language and open-ended questions.

The Goobidy-Foop portion is a translation of the video, permitting the opponent to adopt a Christian-eyed view of how the presentation comes across, in tone. If there is any ire that arises from the Goobidy-Foop section, from those who are pro-WWGHA, then its message was well communicated -- that the original WWGHA is essentially a poorly-executed attempt at criticizing popularly-held Christian views that Christians themselves criticize each other of already, but with the presentation that the video itself stands as the one who is speaking out.