Author Topic: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread  (Read 5241 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline on:bread:alone

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
  • Darwins +8/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #116 on: July 08, 2012, 12:56:00 PM »
dude, where do you (GE) get off accusing anyone else of "dodging the point?"

seriously, that's all you've done in both of these threads. well, that and recycle half-assed information (that you apparently don't even read in it's entirety) from even more half-assed websites. you pose questions for evidence, then dismiss evidence as it's provided. you apply some convoluted circular logic (if you can even bastardize the word "logic" enough to be associated with whatever it is you're trying to do with it) to any counterpoints to try and twist them into contributing to the strength of your argument, which is frail at best. you constantly prod the other members here to "prove it" when saying that god doesn't exist, but have yet to offer anything remotely resembling evidence to back up your handle. and you dodge questions left and right when you can't come up with either a useless bigotted website to cite or a stab at witty retort. YOU sir, are a troll. clearly, you are here to pick a fight, which is stupid. the whole point of forums like this is for intellectual debate, so that we might learn from one another... but you only seem interested in disregarding information while you sit on your high little one-sided pedestal, and otherwise generally being as big a thorn in as many sides as possible. does this bring you peace? do you think that after making such a consistent ass out of yourself that people have even the slightest shred of respect for your further opinion? get over yourself, man.
i'm a street-walking cheetah with a heart full of napalm.

please, check out www.letsgetrational.com

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4768
  • Darwins +546/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #117 on: July 08, 2012, 01:23:25 PM »
Godexists:  I am going to ask you a simple question.  I expect an honest answer to it, and I will be able to tell if you try to lie or BS your way around it.  I expect you to answer it, as well and not try to pretend you missed it.

Do you, or do you not, read the information in the sources that you give as links in full?

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1402
  • Darwins +48/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #118 on: July 08, 2012, 02:32:24 PM »
thats not what i asked for in this thread.
Firstly you didn't ask for anything in this thread, the thread was started by Boots.
However you did post this in post #89
Quote from: Godexist
No , i don't. What i specially do not understand, is why atheists believe they are rational. In my view, they are not. But rather blinded by their wishful thinking, no God to exist, for whatever reason.
There are so many flaws in their thinking,  i don't know even where to begin with......
Which suggests you have no Idea what an atheist is, hence the explanation, in my post #112 ok. I hope it helped to enlighten you, to your mistake.
After all you did ask  in post #98
Quote from: Godexists
please point out precisely what i get wrong about atheism.
So my post was to show you, just one instant, ok.


I notice you ignored the rest of my post so I've reprinted it for you ok.
From post #112.
Quote from: godexists
the odds of a life permitting universe by chance has been calculated to be one to 10^173. Atheists believe chance is a perfectly suited mechanism to explain the fine tuning.
This may help, though I doubt you will understand it, but it is dumbed down for people of your ilk.
Quote
Cornflake analogy
Dr Robert Stovold proved that "Sandwiched between a plagiarised biography and biased references are several canards from the Creationist canon, such as  “evolution is simply a matter of chance”, and “the complexity of living things requires a designer”.  He has refuted both lies with an analogy that He has used for years, it took the form of an amusing conversation he once had with a Creationist:

Creationist: Design requires a designer – it couldn’t arise by random chance!
Me: Would you say that order requires an orderer?
Creationist: Yes.
Me: So why is it that all the small cornflakes tend to settle at the base of the box?  Do you think it’s because God put them there?
Creationist: No – it must be, well, gravity pulling the small flakes down.
Me: Wouldn’t gravity have pulled the large flakes down as well?  Why do the small flakes fall further?
Creationist: I don’t know.
Me: It’s because small flakes fall through large gaps, but large flakes can’t fall through small gaps.  The flakes sieve themselves.  Random shaking of the box coupled with a non-random filtering law (which we might call “the furthest-falling of the smallest” or “the persistence of the largest”) leads to an ordering of flakes over time, with no intelligent input required.  Random shaking is analogous to random mutation, and “the survival of the fittest” (Natural Selection) is analogous to “the persistence of the largest”.  Cornflakes and living things are both self-ordering systems, filtering out smaller flakes and deleterious mutations respectively.  Cornflakes become more organised over time, and organisms become better-adapted.
Creationist: There must be more to it than that?  There must be!  There has to be!
[Walks away scratching his head....]
A more detailed refutation of Comfort’s nonsense is beyond the scope of this blog, but will appear in a future print edition of The Freethinker.
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/11/30/on-the-origin-of-specious-arguments/
Dr Robert Stovold"

[/quote]
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 02:36:07 PM by bertatberts »
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #119 on: July 08, 2012, 03:12:12 PM »
    It is argued that current knowledge of the origin of our universe is far too limited to lead to any demonstration of the existence of a "designer."

    Thats a wellknown tactic to avoice a designer. Even if the scientific evidence points clearly to God, to aknowledge his existence is negated, and the escape is to say, not enough evidence exists. That way, someone can leave God always outside the door. Whatever evidence is encountered, God will always be ignored.

    Quote
    • Fine-tuning is the conclusion that advocates of 'design' want to reach.
    No, finetuning is the outcome and discovery made after scientific research.


    Quote
      However, they almost invariably assume that fine-tuning must have happened in order to reach that conclusion, thus it's a circular argument.

    Of course not. Its a logic deduction.


     
    Quote
    More importantly, nobody has ever demonstrated that these constants can have different values.


    BS. The earth could be more distant from the sun, have a different crust size, the moon could have a different size, oxygen could be 50% in the air etc.  Physical necessity does not apply here.
    YOu should come to that conclusion by your own. Your bias is evident .


    Quote
    • Finally, the inductive argument used here doesn't work.  It's like the common example of how long it would take monkeys banging on typewriters to produce a play from Shakespeare.  All we can really deduce from that argument is that monkeys are <a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#">very[/url] very unlikely to produce great plays.  Similarly, the only thing that can be concluded from this example of a firing squad is that a prisoner will not escape death by shooting without a conspiracy among the shooters.  There is no reasonable way to deduce anything about the universe from either example, or a whole slew of others.

    Of course we can make a logical deductin. Chance and physical necessity is a very bad explanation for the life permitting universe, thus design is the best answer. That is very obvious, thats why atheist that question these facts are irrational.

    Quote
    Finally, Godexists, you've proven beyond any reasonable doubt with this example that you don't do anything more than a very trivial look at the sources you use before you quote and cite them.  It would have been extremely easy to tell with five minutes perusal of that paper - even one minute - that it was eminently unsuitable to your purposes, given that it was focused on pointing out the flaws with the firing squad example you borrowed from it.  It is not unreasonable to expect you to read the sources you use before you pull quotes out of them, yet you somehow managed to miss what the paper was actually about

    It was not my goal to present the purpose of the paper, but the example made by Craig.


    Quote
    Personally, I find your attitude in threads like this to just be sad.

    I think the same about you. You just expose your bias, and base it on irrational arguments. I think you betray and cheat yourself.



    Quote
      You've accused everyone who disagrees with you of being unwilling to accept the evidence

    exactly. You prove it with your missed arguments here one more time , very clearly btw. Any unbiased reader can see that very easily. The fine-tune argument of the universe is one if not the most compelling one for theism, and a designer. To dismiss it easyly, and with cheap and uncompelling reasons, as you have done with your answer right here, shows how blinded and biased you are through your willful wish no God to exist. Why that ?


    Quote
    that you claim supports your contention of design, of having to do anything and everything to keep their worldview intact despite that evidence, yet the only stuff you can actually provide consists of arguments from incredulity


    Indeed. Questioning the fine-tuning of the universe, is as believing in Santa Claus. I do not believe unreasonable things. I believe compelling things, with strong evidence. The fine-tuning of the universe is VERY strong evidence for design.

    Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people 39  who suppress the truth by their 40  unrighteousness, 41  1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, 42  because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people 43  are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts 44  were darkened. 1:22 Although they claimed 45  to be wise, they became fools



    Quote
    You have no business participating in discussions like this until you prove yourself capable of reading the sources you quote from.

    oh, i see. you try now to find futile reasons to exclude me from this forum ?

    Offline Emily

    • Professor
    • ********
    • Posts: 5663
    • Darwins +49/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
    « Reply #120 on: July 08, 2012, 03:14:50 PM »
    No, finetuning is the outcome and discovery made after scientific research.

    ha, it's like they are fine-tuning true scientific research to fit their claims that scientific research supports their version of god.

    Oh, wait.......

    "Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

    I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

    Offline Godexists

    • Graduate
    • ****
    • Posts: 332
    • Darwins +0/-65
    • Gender: Male
    • WWGHA Member
    • User posts join approval queueModerated
    Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
    « Reply #121 on: July 08, 2012, 03:28:05 PM »
    Which suggests you have no Idea what an atheist is

    1. i did not ask atheists to present evidence, that God does not exist. 2. I know well the distinction between a weak, and a strong atheist. Do you ?


    Quote
    Dr Robert Stovold proved that "Sandwiched between a plagiarised biography and biased references are several canards from the Creationist canon, such as  “evolution is simply a matter of chance”, and “the complexity of living things requires a designer”.  He has refuted both lies

    its wellknown that evolution has not chance as mechanism, and you will hardly find a creationist that thinks so.  The complexity of living things is in my view best explained through design. There is no way to refute this with proofs. Otherwise, someone would have to be able to go back in time, presence what actually happened, and be able to prove the truth.


    Quote
    Creationist: Design requires a designer – it couldn’t arise by random chance!
    Me: Would you say that order requires an orderer?
    Creationist: Yes.

    Snowflakes for example show us order, but are not designed. So that answer is already false. A educated creationist would answer the second question differently.


    Quote
    Me: So why is it that all the small cornflakes tend to settle at the base of the box?  Do you think it’s because God put them there?
    Creationist: No – it must be, well, gravity pulling the small flakes down.

    ah, see. i was right. Now you might answer, how complex , specified information as contained in DNA has to be explained. Good luck with that. Fact is, that is a knock out argument for all
    atheistic thinking, since nobody has ever been able, and never will, to show, that complex specified codifed information can arise by chance. Neither can a naturalist say, DNA arose by evolution, since that is a matter of abiogenesis, where the first live was not yet even present.


    Offline Godexists

    • Graduate
    • ****
    • Posts: 332
    • Darwins +0/-65
    • Gender: Male
    • WWGHA Member
    • User posts join approval queueModerated
    Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
    « Reply #122 on: July 08, 2012, 03:31:54 PM »
    No, finetuning is the outcome and discovery made after scientific research.

    ha, it's like they are fine-tuning true scientific research to fit their claims that scientific research supports their version of god.

    Oh, wait.......

    you miss the fact that fine-tuning is not simply a argument of creationist taken out of a magic hat, but aknowledged by science, of which militant atheists like Dawkins or Stenger try to give answer, cancelling out God, proposing the ridiculous and unprovable Multiverse fantasy.

    Offline Godexists

    • Graduate
    • ****
    • Posts: 332
    • Darwins +0/-65
    • Gender: Male
    • WWGHA Member
    • User posts join approval queueModerated
    Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
    « Reply #123 on: July 08, 2012, 03:33:12 PM »
    Godexists:  I am going to ask you a simple question.  I expect an honest answer to it, and I will be able to tell if you try to lie or BS your way around it.  I expect you to answer it, as well and not try to pretend you missed it.

    Do you, or do you not, read the information in the sources that you give as links in full?

    I do not need to read all the information of a given website, to extract the information i want.

    Online jetson

    • Administrator
    • *******
    • Posts: 7275
    • Darwins +170/-6
    • Gender: Male
    • Meet George Jetson!
      • Jet Blog
    Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
    « Reply #124 on: July 08, 2012, 03:39:00 PM »
    godexists - you are wasting people's time.  You are not in a discussion mode at all, you are in a mode of telling everyone that they are wrong, yet you have not shown a single thing that clearly shows where anyone is wrong.

    You are also failing hard when you continue to say "prove it" or make comments like "there is no way to refute this with proofs", which puts a full stop on any reasonable reply. 

    If you don't want to discuss, I think you need to find another forum to spew your unsupported BS to people who already agree with you.

    If you decide to stay, we are going to moderate you until you comply, or force you to leave - got it?

    I'm not giving you any other options.

    Jetson

    Offline Emily

    • Professor
    • ********
    • Posts: 5663
    • Darwins +49/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
    « Reply #125 on: July 08, 2012, 03:39:25 PM »

    you miss the fact that fine-tuning is not simply a argument of creationist taken out of a magic hat, but aknowledged by science, of which militant atheists like Dawkins or Stenger try to give answer, cancelling out God, proposing the ridiculous and unprovable Multiverse fantasy.

    lot of words. The alcohol is kicking in and I have no idea what you said.

    Are you saying that science agrees with a finely-tuned universe and that science supports this god figure to be behind it all? A god which is also an unprovable fantasy?
    "Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

    I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

    Offline Godexists

    • Graduate
    • ****
    • Posts: 332
    • Darwins +0/-65
    • Gender: Male
    • WWGHA Member
    • User posts join approval queueModerated
    Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
    « Reply #126 on: July 08, 2012, 03:41:15 PM »
    dude, where do you (GE) get off accusing anyone else of "dodging the point?"

    seriously, that's all you've done in both of these threads. well, that and recycle half-assed information (that you apparently don't even read in it's entirety) from even more half-assed websites. you pose questions for evidence, then dismiss evidence as it's provided.

    Yep. That is EXACTLY what i am doing. You know, atheists are acostumed to ask for proofs or evidence for Gods existence, and find wide ground to beat on the bible, and a creationist world view.
    Thats easy. More difficult it is, to come up with a consistent OWN world view. Examine it, and the card house falls down like a big crush. That is what i am showing here, examining the presented evidence. Participants here show to be incredibly superficial. Escape is to try to avoid the facts, and start attacking me. Happened here several times. So yes. The atheist world view presented here is a great failure, based on irrationality, and incredulity.

    Quote
    you apply some convoluted circular logic (if you can even bastardize the word "logic"

    nope. I show straightforward why the presented answers lack to be compelling.



     
    Quote
    enough to be associated with whatever it is you're trying to do with it) to any counterpoints to try and twist them into contributing to the strength of your argument, which is frail at best. you constantly prod the other members here to "prove it" when saying that god doesn't exist

    absolute assertions demand absolute proves. If a member here asserts. God does not exist, he shall prove it.

    Quote
    but have yet to offer anything remotely resembling evidence to back up your handle.

    First of all, do i never make the assertion, Gods existence is a proven fact, saying, God exists ( despite my nickname ). secondly, i have abundant reasons to believe so, and demanded several times of participants, that would like to know what evidence i have, to open a new thread. nobody has. As soon someone opens a thread of this matter, i will present the evidence.

    Quote
    and you dodge questions left and right when you can't come up with either a useless bigotted website to cite or a stab at witty retort. YOU sir, are a troll.

    Oh sure. You see ?? Rather than call me a troll, presente the f**** evidence for naturalism. btw. i do report all insults to moderation. 



    Offline Emily

    • Professor
    • ********
    • Posts: 5663
    • Darwins +49/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
    « Reply #127 on: July 08, 2012, 03:46:24 PM »

    Oh sure. You see ?? Rather than call me a troll, presente the f**** evidence for naturalism. btw. i do report all insults to moderation.

    This is the whole 'is atheism accurate and correct' arguments that was presented on youtube a year or so back all over again.

    What evidence would you consider for naturalism, GE?

    BTW: What was that youtuber who started that is atheism accurate and correct crap. I forgot. ShockofGod, that's it. Nevermind. Thanks for your help, everyone.  :)
    "Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

    I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

    Offline Godexists

    • Graduate
    • ****
    • Posts: 332
    • Darwins +0/-65
    • Gender: Male
    • WWGHA Member
    • User posts join approval queueModerated
    Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
    « Reply #128 on: July 08, 2012, 03:46:45 PM »
    Quote
    If you don't want to discuss, I think you need to find another forum to spew your unsupported BS to people who already agree with you.



    Jetson

    ah , i see. Tap the ears, and lalalaaaaa...... fine. I don't be asked twice to search a other forum. That is  my last post at this forum.

    My last word : I have shown in a clear, understandable way, how the atheistic world view lacks in many ways. How the evidence for naturalism is weak at least. But in reality, complete nonsenes. Chance and physical need cannot explain our universe. God loves you. Remember this. God is not the monster that you think he is. He is love, and he loves you, and want to save you from hell, to enjoy eternal joy in haven. Thats why he send his beloved son Jesus , to die for YOU at the cross of golgatha. May now you are not open for this message. But eventually later in life, you might be. Remember : God does NEVER give up on you. But once you die, and you did not open your heart for Jesus, its over. Nothing can change your destination.  God bless.

    Offline Emily

    • Professor
    • ********
    • Posts: 5663
    • Darwins +49/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
    « Reply #129 on: July 08, 2012, 03:49:56 PM »
    Don't let the frustration get to you, GE. If you want to stay just change your posting style.

    Can you answer my question. What would you consider evidence for naturalism (atheism) being correct? It's a simple question, I know. But I'd like to know what you standards are.
    "Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

    I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

    Online jetson

    • Administrator
    • *******
    • Posts: 7275
    • Darwins +170/-6
    • Gender: Male
    • Meet George Jetson!
      • Jet Blog
    Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
    « Reply #130 on: July 08, 2012, 03:50:10 PM »
    Quote
    If you don't want to discuss, I think you need to find another forum to spew your unsupported BS to people who already agree with you.



    Jetson

    ah , i see. Tap the ears, and lalalaaaaa...... fine. I don't be asked twice to search a other forum. That is  my last post at this forum.

    My last word : I have shown in a clear, understandable way, how the atheistic world view lacks in many ways. How the evidence for naturalism is weak at least. But in reality, complete nonsenes. Chance and physical need cannot explain our universe. God loves you. Remember this. God is not the monster that you think he is. He is love, and he loves you, and want to save you from hell, to enjoy eternal joy in haven. Thats why he send his beloved son Jesus , to die for YOU at the cross of golgatha. May now you are not open for this message. But eventually later in life, you might be. Remember : God does NEVER give up on you. But once you die, and you did not open your heart for Jesus, its over. Nothing can change your destination.  God bless.

    You have shown nothing of the kind, but please keep thinking that you have.  You are not being banned from this forum, but your style is completely selfish and does not warrant the amount of replies you have received so far, from good-standing, intelligent members of this forum.

    Offline boobatuba

    • Freshman
    • *
    • Posts: 48
    • Darwins +6/-0
    • Gender: Male
    • WWGHA Member
    Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
    « Reply #131 on: July 08, 2012, 04:02:50 PM »
    My last word : I have shown in a clear, understandable way, how the atheistic world view lacks in many ways. How the evidence for naturalism is weak at least. But in reality, complete nonsenes. Chance and physical need cannot explain our universe. God loves you. Remember this. God is not the monster that you think he is. He is love, and he loves you, and want to save you from hell, to enjoy eternal joy in haven. Thats why he send his beloved son Jesus , to die for YOU at the cross of golgatha. May now you are not open for this message. But eventually later in life, you might be. Remember : God does NEVER give up on you. But once you die, and you did not open your heart for Jesus, its over. Nothing can change your destination.  God bless.
    No, like most theists you simply present your evidence (or lack thereof) of god as "He says this so it's true!" Also, if god NEVER gives up on you, why is it "over" if you die without opening your heart for Jesus? Sounds like an "oh, well" to me on the part of god regarding your eternal joy. It seems to me that an omnipotent, omniscient being with such an important message would reveal it (and himself) more clearly.

    I spent 12 years saying things like that to impressionable children and decided I simply couldn't live the lie any more. Hopefully, someday, such a revelation will come to you as well. Best wishes.

    Offline jaimehlers

    • Fellow
    • *******
    • Posts: 4768
    • Darwins +546/-14
    • Gender: Male
    • WWGHA Member
    Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
    « Reply #132 on: July 08, 2012, 04:08:26 PM »
    My last word : I have shown in a clear, understandable way, how the atheistic world view lacks in many ways. How the evidence for naturalism is weak at least. But in reality, complete nonsenes. Chance and physical need cannot explain our universe. God loves you. Remember this. God is not the monster that you think he is. He is love, and he loves you, and want to save you from hell, to enjoy eternal joy in haven. Thats why he send his beloved son Jesus , to die for YOU at the cross of golgatha. May now you are not open for this message. But eventually later in life, you might be. Remember : God does NEVER give up on you. But once you die, and you did not open your heart for Jesus, its over. Nothing can change your destination.  God bless.
    The only thing you've shown in a clear, understandable way is that you aren't even slightly interested in anything except "proving" that your worldview is right at any cost.  You're only really interested in trying to preach your beliefs, rather than discuss them in a reasonable, sensible manner, and in throwing mud at anything and everything that might conflict with them.

    Thank you for being honest about the fact that you have no conception of intellectual honesty.  I suspected that was the case, but I was hoping you at least had enough dregs of basic honesty and decency to admit it if confronted about it.  The truly piteous thing is that you don't understand how your lack of intellectual honesty completely sabotages any hope of achieving your goal of convincing people that your religious beliefs are right.  To put this in a way that you will understand, there's a saying about religious fanatics.  They are so obsessed with the concept of "saving people" at any cost that they throw away the very things that would allow them to accomplish that goal.  In other words, they're so convinced they know the "answer" - to them, God - that they forget that no matter what they think they know, there are many times that number of things that they do not know.

    However, your last parting remark goes both ways.  The forum will always be open to you if you change your mind and decide to embrace the concept of honesty, and are willing to accept the fact that you might very well be wrong in your ideas or beliefs.

    Offline Hatter23

    • Fellow
    • *******
    • Posts: 3880
    • Darwins +257/-7
    • Gender: Male
    • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
    An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

    And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

    Offline on:bread:alone

    • Undergraduate
    • ***
    • Posts: 163
    • Darwins +8/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
    « Reply #134 on: July 08, 2012, 04:32:08 PM »
    Oh sure. You see ?? Rather than call me a troll, presente the f**** evidence for naturalism. btw. i do report all insults to moderation.

    oh, please do. please, please draw more attention to yourself by getting the moderators more involved with this thread and your constant dodging and preaching. pretty please... with fucking cherries on it.
    i'm a street-walking cheetah with a heart full of napalm.

    please, check out www.letsgetrational.com

    Offline Hatter23

    • Fellow
    • *******
    • Posts: 3880
    • Darwins +257/-7
    • Gender: Male
    • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
    Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
    « Reply #135 on: July 08, 2012, 04:44:36 PM »
    Quote
    If you don't want to discuss, I think you need to find another forum to spew your unsupported BS to people who already agree with you.



    Jetson

    ah , i see. Tap the ears, and lalalaaaaa...... fine.

    Your modus operandi, not ours





    I don't be asked twice to search a other forum. That is  my last post at this forum.

    My last word : I have shown in a clear, understandable way, how the atheistic world view lacks in many ways.

    Not even slightly. You've attempted to reverse the burden of proof, then followed it up with Underwear Gnomes Theology. Every single argument, other than the lies and insults, you've presented has hinged on that line of thinking.


     How the evidence for naturalism is weak at least. But in reality, complete nonsenes.

    Naturalism as weak. The evidence for naturalism, as you call it, is every single scientific fact, even the discarded theories; they have been based on the concept other than "It's Magic." That's so far away from weak to even call it that is pretty much an indication you are utterly delusional.
    An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

    And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

    Offline Graybeard

    • Global Moderator
    • ******
    • Posts: 6574
    • Darwins +512/-18
    • Gender: Male
    • Is this going somewhere?
    Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
    « Reply #136 on: July 08, 2012, 05:03:07 PM »
    I do not need to read all the information of a given website, to extract the information i want.
    Then why do you post bare links to websites and expect us to find the information you intend inside them?

    When you can tell us
    how a deity can create matter/energy out of nothing;
    how a deity lives for ever without oxygen, eating, drinking, pissing or shitting;
    how the Deity was around before the universe;
    Why nothing on earth is able to be credited to a deity;
    why there are thousands of deities known to man;
    Why any of those deities should be the most powerful deity and
    why you believe folk tales of life after death.

    we might have something to go on. However, we have never seen any of this evidence. It is then only reasonable that we should be unconvinced that there is any case at all for a deity.

    The universe arose naturally or by magic via a deity.

    Without evidence of a deity, this leaves philosophical naturalism, which has, a huge corpus of well documented, peer-reviewed and well tested evidence. You can do many of the experiments yourself, and can see many of them on the internet.

    I hope this has answered your question. If it hasn't, do a science course at your local college.




    RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

    Offline Quesi

    • Reader
    • ******
    • Posts: 1986
    • Darwins +371/-4
    • Gender: Female
    • WWGHA Member
    Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
    « Reply #137 on: July 08, 2012, 05:15:29 PM »
    GE - For someone with such a superior moral system, you are not particularly nice, are you?