Author Topic: fundamentalists-deuslional?  (Read 437 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wigglytuff

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 74
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
fundamentalists-deuslional?
« on: October 19, 2012, 09:18:06 PM »
check out some of this guys arguements &) http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_New_Atheists_and_Remembering_A_Notorious_Atheists%E2%80%99_Prayer%2FPart_2   that athiests are  fighting a losing battle........ i think this guy might be really crazy...

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5663
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: fundamentalists-deuslional?
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2012, 09:45:32 PM »
It's too long, and I cannot focus right now on account of it being a Friday night and I have tomorrow off of work.

I always love it when people say atheists are fighting a losing battle. To me it shows that the theists aren't engaging and/or thinking about what atheism is, what arguments atheists have, and in my opinion it's a sign of defeat for the theists because it shows that they will never listen to what the other side has to say.

From what I read in the article it's same same 'complex design; complex designer' bullshit argument. Here's the quote:

After all, take the Blue Gene supercomputer that accomplishes over 200 trillion calculations per second. Japan's "K Computer" (2011), now the fastest computer in the world, can handle over 8 quadrillion calculations each second, making it 40 times faster than the Blue Gene (or the power of about a million standard desktops.) But a single human brain can handle probably 1020 (100 sextillion) instructions per second (we don't really know) – and far more human brains have concluded God exists than not. If these marvelously constructed human supercomputers required the input of immense complexity and design, how to atheists or scientists logically argue that the human mind, which is a million times faster than the best supercomputer in the world, simply appeared from nowhere out of nothing, by chance?

Non-sequitur right there. The human mind is not a computer. A computer such as a supercomputer has been designed though years and years of research. The brain has evolved through millions of years of evolution. And actually, far more human brains have believed in a god, correct - but there's a large argument within the theistic world of which god that might be. And because of this how are atheists likely to believe in one of those groups that believe in a god when there are so many groups to choose from. Atheists believe in one less god than a christian does.

The little I read in that article shows it'll just be as illogical as any other article written on the subject of atheists having a losing argument.

and this:

In essence, disbelief can be reduced to personal rebellion against God.

They've taken the generic god out of the question and replaced that god with a god that has traits. The trait being 'god will be pissed at you if you rebel against him'

And honestly, an atheist cannot rebel against that which they believe doesn't exist.

and this:

Atheists simply can't win against theism philosophically, historically, scientifically, logically or otherwise because so much evidence runs contrary to their position. There always will be such evidence, and if science continues to advance, the evidence will continue to increase which means the atheist can never win.

Actually, regarding science, history, logic and philosophically, atheists have the advantage because no theist has proven god with any of the four. And in terms of science, science isn't trying to prove or disprove god, but looking at science it's pretty easy to conclude that certain god's aren't real when using what has been found in science and comparing it with holy books.

So that article is just like many others written. It's a shame it's a poor misrepresentation of atheism.

-M
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 09:56:26 PM by Emily »
"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 Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11810
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: fundamentalists-deuslional?
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2012, 10:17:46 PM »
I just read it. Same BS, different person.

Also, I like how 3 people like it on FB.

;)

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

Offline Garja

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
  • Darwins +38/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: fundamentalists-deuslional?
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2012, 11:18:40 PM »
Wow....


I was struck by his claim "Atheists simply can't win against theism philosophically, historically, scientifically, logically or otherwise because so much evidence runs contrary to their position. There always will be such evidence, and if science continues to advance, the evidence will continue to increase which means the atheist can never win"

Yet in that entire article he mentions not a single piece of that evidence.
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution."

-Benjamin Franklin

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11810
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: fundamentalists-deuslional?
« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2012, 11:25:55 PM »
^actually he did. See, if you read it carefully, he never mentioned what religion he was speaking about 'til a bit near the begiining of the second part, then he mentions Christianity, and starts to cite the Bible (I think Romans was his first citation) so the Bible is his source and evidence; if you go onto the 3rd part it's nothing but the Bible, atheist turns into Christian etc., etc.,

-Nam
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 11:27:48 PM by Nam »
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

Offline wigglytuff

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 74
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: fundamentalists-deuslional?
« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2012, 02:49:08 PM »
interestingly enough this guy, the writer of this article got his diploma at the same university as Jack Van impe...

Offline learnin

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
  • Darwins +7/-0
Re: fundamentalists-deuslional?
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2012, 03:26:33 PM »
The argument will always come down to:   "Show me a watch without a watchmaker and I'll believe in a universe without a maker."

I propose that this should not be the argument.  Who of us can say, for certain, that there is not some superior, yet to be discovered, force, intelligence, if you need, that is at work; is behind what we observe?

I propose the argument should be for or against the various gods that mankind places before us.

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: fundamentalists-deuslional?
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2012, 09:55:24 PM »
Who of us can say, for certain, that there is not some superior, yet to be discovered, force, intelligence, if you need, that is at work; is behind what we observe?

How did your mom and dad make you as a baby? Was your mom an incredible bio-chemist that knitted the DNA strand that your father, an incredible engineer and molecular physicist, designed? Think about it. You weren't made in the same sense a watch was made. The actual sexual act that our parents used to "make" us was quite simple. (except for Nam of course). So how could something soo complex as a baby come from such a simple physical effort? This is how stupid their complexity argument is. We know that there were bio-chemical precursors to our creation and that our parents didn't whip us up in a lab. It is the precursors that trace back generation after generation to make us from the more simple.
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11810
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: fundamentalists-deuslional?
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2012, 10:07:34 PM »
Is today "Pick on Nam Day"? Why didn't I get the memo? Was there cake? I hope not, I am allergic to cake.

:(

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: fundamentalists-deuslional?
« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2012, 10:15:12 PM »
Yes, it was "devil's food" cake! Only I don't believe it existed..
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2629
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: fundamentalists-deuslional?
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2012, 10:17:16 PM »
I am allergic to cake.

Even delicious cake?
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11810
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: fundamentalists-deuslional?
« Reply #11 on: October 24, 2012, 10:25:50 PM »
Sadly, all cakes. I am good with cupcakes, though.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2629
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: fundamentalists-deuslional?
« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2012, 10:28:11 PM »
Yet in that entire article he mentions not a single piece of that evidence.

That's because the evidence is all around you son. It doesn't have to be pointed out, just open your eyes and see!

Consider the Lillie's.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: fundamentalists-deuslional?
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2012, 01:59:49 AM »
I am always amused by the complexity as proof of design argument. If nothing could exist without God waving his hands and abracadra'ing it into existence then complexity is a poor criterion for assessing design because nothing is "more designed" than anything else. Given the premise a human brain wouldn't be any more evidence for design than the rock in my backyard. Many of these Christian arguments aren't even consistent with themselves.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 02:01:53 AM by Aspie »

Offline relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 591
  • Darwins +7/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: fundamentalists-deuslional?
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2012, 06:47:51 AM »

From what I read in the article it's same same 'complex design; complex designer' bullshit argument. Here's the quote:

After all, take the Blue Gene supercomputer that accomplishes over 200 trillion calculations per second. Japan's "K Computer" (2011), now the fastest computer in the world, can handle over 8 quadrillion calculations each second, making it 40 times faster than the Blue Gene (or the power of about a million standard desktops.) But a single human brain can handle probably 1020 (100 sextillion) instructions per second (we don't really know) – and far more human brains have concluded God exists than not. If these marvelously constructed human supercomputers required the input of immense complexity and design, how to atheists or scientists logically argue that the human mind, which is a million times faster than the best supercomputer in the world, simply appeared from nowhere out of nothing, by chance?


What proportion [of their 100 sextillion instructions per second CPU power] does the average theist dedicate to analyzing the existence  [or Not] of their god?

If the human brain is a computer then most of the  processing power is dedicated to just living [Coordinating muscle groups, monitoring and managing areas of stress due to injury, disease, fatigue, hunger etc].
It is only when there is a relatively quiet time [not having sex, watching football, etc] when the human brain can then indulge in thinking about life the universe and everything.

It is only then IMHO when theists come close to using even 10% of their 100 sextillion IPS and most of that is taken up by the short-circuit caused by their cognitive dissonance.
God(s) exist and are imaginary