Author Topic: A Challenge to Christians  (Read 21430 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #319 on: April 23, 2013, 02:21:17 PM »
Same with the codified information stored in DNA. It has a intelligent being as origin. Chance does not create codified information.

None of us ever said that chance creates codified information. That's a lie propagated by believers. While chance plays a small part in nature, natural selection is not based on chance. Given the right conditions amino acids form on their own. Life is based on amino acids. Currently we are trying to find the correct circumstances where amino acids will naturally bond and form life. Once life forms, it will develop further or stagnate. On Earth it did not stagnate. If life does not stagnate then it will develop a mechanism by which it can propagate – that may include a mechanism for codifying existing information and passing it on to the next generation.


I noticed that myself and a few others answered you with regards to your anecdote. You did not reply to any of us. I might have missed other posts but I did see these two in addition to my own with these questions:
Jaimehlers #237 "Why do you think lawyers cross-examine someone testifying on the stand?"
Me #238 "Was it to have them meet so the pastor could try to convert him?" & "Was the employee working for you back in 2002?"
Seppuku #243 (No direct question.)
Does no reply to us (even as a group) mean you withdraw your anecdote as "evidence"? Or maybe our statements and questions caused you to remember something that made you realize the pastor was playing your employee? Or you can't respond without lying since you and the pastor planned it?

Also, I answered your points (fine tuning, abiogenesis, DNA, homochirality, "irreducible complexity", beards) although I doubt to your satisfaction. With no reply I can only guess that you have no valid argument against what I said.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline skepticofatheism

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +0/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #320 on: April 23, 2013, 06:00:49 PM »
None of us ever said that chance creates codified information. That's a lie propagated by believers. While chance plays a small part in nature, natural selection is not based on chance.

Natural selection did not play a key role before life existed.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html

Quote
After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

Quote
Given the right conditions amino acids form on their own. Life is based on amino acids. Currently we are trying to find the correct circumstances where amino acids will naturally bond and form life. Once life forms, it will develop further or stagnate. On Earth it did not stagnate. If life does not stagnate then it will develop a mechanism by which it can propagate – that may include a mechanism for codifying existing information and passing it on to the next generation.

that existing information had to be generated, how ?

Quote
Or you can't respond without lying since you and the pastor planned it?

I am not lying. I presenced the event. I usually stop answering , when someone starts to acuse me to lie.

Quote
Also, I answered your points (fine tuning, abiogenesis, DNA, homochirality, "irreducible complexity", beards) although I doubt to your satisfaction. With no reply I can only guess that you have no valid argument against what I said.

sorry, i think just examine one issue after the other is better, than all together.

Offline skepticofatheism

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +0/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #321 on: April 23, 2013, 06:02:32 PM »

Then where is this alleged designer?  There is no trace of it anywhere in the universe.


can you show me where your thoughts  are physically  ?

Offline skepticofatheism

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +0/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #322 on: April 23, 2013, 06:11:31 PM »
In short, as far as I'm concerned the terms "information" and "consciousness" are merely words that we use to describe abstractions  (i.e. - guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine exhibit chemical reactions that WE call "information") but that is a metaphor.

you should tell that dawkins :

Richard Dawkins at his book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/dna-code/

Quote
Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

Quote
As for consciousness, let's start here. All of the evidence we have demonstrates that the mind is wholly connected to, and is a property of, the physical brain (i.e. - that they are indistinguishable from each other). What makes you think there is some "spiritual" thing - if you do think that?

scientific evidence.

http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/Outofbodyfull.htm

Quote
A most highly credible scientist, Dr Robert Crookall, analyzed over seven hundred reports of OBEs from all over the world. He was surprised that they were all consistent. (Crookall 1970).

Offline skepticofatheism

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +0/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #323 on: April 23, 2013, 06:13:51 PM »
we can use the same arguments to attack Santa that we do Yahweh. They are in the same category.

No they are not. There is no evidence Santa exists. But there are plenty of reasons to deduce a powerful, eternal creator as the best explanation for our existence.

Offline skepticofatheism

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +0/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #324 on: April 23, 2013, 06:17:52 PM »
ATHEISM IS THE LACK OF BELIEF IN A GOD.

weak atheism is. correct. Strong atheism however holds a positive position, namely that God most probably does not exist. By a close examination, it becomes very fast clear here, that strong atheism is the position hold by most  atheism forum participants, even if they deny this.



 
Quote
That is all. Therefore, atheism is NOT a worldview. Atheists, no doubt, have views of the world but many of us differ greatly in those views. If you had studied Bahnsen you would have realized that he later changed his position on this in order to avoid the fallacy. But still that didn't help.

Xtians do have a world view, even if they differe from each other. Same with ( strong ) atheists.  Weak atheists do not debate in forums, because the issue of God is irrelevant for them.


Offline skepticofatheism

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +0/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #325 on: April 23, 2013, 06:23:40 PM »
Life appears to be one of the unlikely random chance-y things.

Please present evidence to back up your claim. Otherwise its not more than just wishful thinking.

Quote
Some chemicals got mixed in the right way at the right times.

Could you imagine, that some letters also, mixed up the right way, and the right time, could  get to the right place to form by chance Shakespeares Hamlet ?



Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6714
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #326 on: April 23, 2013, 08:16:19 PM »
Could you imagine, that some letters also, mixed up the right way, and the right time, could  get to the right place to form by chance Shakespeares Hamlet ?
No, although with infinity all things are possible. However, Shakespeare's Hamlet started its life as scratchings on a cave wall, evolved into an alphabet, turned into stories, and, eventually became a play. Of course, this all took thousands of years. These things just don't get poofed into existence by some invisible pixie, you know.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2013, 08:18:05 PM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #327 on: April 23, 2013, 08:23:46 PM »
By a close examination, it becomes very fast clear here, that strong atheism is the position hold by most  atheism forum participants, even if they deny this.

(Springy G reaches for the Clue-By-Four™...)

*BAM BAM BAM SMASH THWACK CLONK*

How dare you accuse us of lying about what we do or do not believe!

Just for that, SoA, I've taken the liberty of planting a subliminal message in your brain that will cause you to commit the unforgivable sin in your sleep, thereby forfeiting for all time any hope of getting into your imaginary friend's Nice Place.  (You'll know that it worked when you wake up in the middle of a night in a cold sweat.  ;D)
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline skepticofatheism

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +0/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #328 on: April 23, 2013, 08:28:43 PM »
No, although with infinity all things are possible.

there was no infinite time the dna code to arise by chance.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #329 on: April 23, 2013, 10:40:49 PM »
that existing information had to be generated, how ?
Not by chance, that's for sure.  Chemicals don't combine randomly with other chemicals.  Their interactions are governed by electromagnetic bonds.

Quote from: skepticofatheism
I am not lying. I presenced the event. I usually stop answering , when someone starts to acuse me to lie.
That's your problem, not his.  And to be perfectly honest, we don't know the first thing about you.  Not one thing except what you've told us, which we aren't really in a position to verify.  And you're starting out by telling us something that's, frankly, very hard to swallow.  Yes, you offered to provide additional testimony to corroborate, but that isn't useful.  An extraordinary event requires extraordinary evidence.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #330 on: April 24, 2013, 02:17:31 AM »
Natural selection did not play a key role before life existed.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html

Quote
After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing?

I think this is the problem.  You are so set on their HAVING to be a conscious intelligence behind it all, that you can't see how selection doesn't apply just to "life".

Imagine waaaaaay back, there are molecules type A, and molecules type B.  Those molecules sometimes combine (as AA, AB, or BB), and sometimes they don't.  Extrenal conditions mean that single A or B molecules are more likely to be destroyed by the environment.  So gradually, the single molecules disappear, and the combined molecules keep going. 

The selective advantage of anything is only "is this thing going to live longer/reproduce better than the other things".  There's no direction, no thought behind it.

Sometimes the problem is in the way people descibe things.  The statement "molecules combined to live longer" implies that those molecules were somehow deciding to combine in order to gain an advantage.  They don't.  The correct statement should be "the molecules that combined lived longer". 

It often gets worse when you get on to less basal forms - sentences like "antelopes evolved longer legs to escape from predators" implies the antelopes going to running practice, and shunning antelopes with longer legs.  The correct sentence would be "antelopes began to have longer legs as the shorter-legged antelopes were eaten.  Longer legged antelopes thus became the norm in the population".

So the "advantage" for non-thinking molecules to combine, is that combined molecules survive more often than single molecules.  No thought, no decision, no choice.  They combine, or not, without direction - and the ones that don't die, the ones that do survive.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline skepticofatheism

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +0/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #331 on: April 24, 2013, 06:27:58 AM »

That's your problem, not his.  And to be perfectly honest, we don't know the first thing about you.  Not one thing except what you've told us, which we aren't really in a position to verify.  And you're starting out by telling us something that's, frankly, very hard to swallow.  Yes, you offered to provide additional testimony to corroborate, but that isn't useful.  An extraordinary event requires extraordinary evidence.

If you pressupposition is, that testimonies are not credible, than the challenge per se is senseless.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6714
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #332 on: April 24, 2013, 07:39:34 AM »
No, although with infinity all things are possible.

there was no infinite time the dna code to arise by chance.

I think you did not concentrate on what I actually said. The first part referred to the random arising of Hamlet, whereas the second part told you how Hamlet came to be written and, being as it was written in the early 17th century, obviously did not require an infinite amount of time.

Now that I have explain how the evolution of language and the written language developed such that Hamlet was written, can you see how, for example, an eye developed through evolution?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #333 on: April 24, 2013, 08:43:51 AM »
If you pressupposition is, that testimonies are not credible, than the challenge per se is senseless.
They're not credible enough by themselves, not even if you stack a whole lot of them together.  Not in law, not in science, not in any other field of human endeavor; there needs to be solid, verifiable evidence to go along with testimonies.  Why should religion be given a pass and allowed to rely just on testimonials?

Offline skepticofatheism

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +0/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #334 on: April 24, 2013, 09:17:34 AM »
Now that I have explain how the evolution of language and the written language developed such that Hamlet was written, can you see how, for example, an eye developed through evolution?

Neither can a eye, nor a cell develope through evolution. Both are irreducibly complex.

Offline skepticofatheism

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +0/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #335 on: April 24, 2013, 09:19:48 AM »
If you pressupposition is, that testimonies are not credible, than the challenge per se is senseless.
They're not credible enough by themselves, not even if you stack a whole lot of them together.  Not in law, not in science, not in any other field of human endeavor; there needs to be solid, verifiable evidence to go along with testimonies.  Why should religion be given a pass and allowed to rely just on testimonials?

because miracles can hardly be scientifically verified. Testimonies are however permitted in court. Why should they not permitted to relate a miracle ? There are literally millions of miracles testified all over the world, and through all ages. Its hardly justifiable to assert these people where all deluded.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #336 on: April 24, 2013, 09:35:38 AM »
No, although with infinity all things are possible.

there was no infinite time the dna code to arise by chance.

Has this thread really devolved into a creationist thread?  *slaps fivehead*    *slaps sixhead*

How could that happen?

I mean, I suppose of the Bible contained a manual on how God created DNA, and explained how he pushed life into existence, creating a universe that sculptued amino acids, then maybe Christians/Jews would have some claim on creation.

But, the Jew Bible only mentions creation, in passing, and gives no insights into how it really occurred, and hence people remained thinking that the Earth was flat, held up above an abyss, that there is water above the sun, and that rainbows did not exist, prior to Noah.

Quote
there was no infinite time the dna code to arise by chance.

How do you know that there was no infinite time? Are you reading this out of the same fucking book that says that the fucking sun was created 3 days after sunlight?

You have no claim on creation, any more than Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos, Zoroastrians, Eripighunters, Zapotecs, Taoists, Mulsims, and Baked Bean Worshippers.

All these people had to wait for real scientists to come along, and actually look out the window and dig holes in the ground, because religion has contributed NOTHING ever useful to the physical sciences. (Unless you count the breeding of striped goats, using sticks across water troughs.) There, I will have to concede that Judiasm was thousands of years ahead of its time.

TL;DR

STFU
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2749
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #337 on: April 24, 2013, 11:11:25 AM »
No they are not. There is no evidence Santa exists. But there are plenty of reasons to deduce a powerful, eternal creator as the best explanation for our existence.

So what evidence do you have that Santa Claus does not exist?  Given your lines of questioning earlier, I'd be very interested to see what constitute evidence for the non-existence of something.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline mango

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #338 on: April 24, 2013, 11:44:20 AM »
I'd be very interested to see what constitute evidence for the non-existence of something.
That's really easy: Evidence inconsistent with the existence of the thing.

The argument from naughty is a good argument against Santa's existence. All the rich naughty kids still get tons of presents. That is inconsistent with the naughty/nice doctrine, a central tenant of Santaclausism. If Santa exists, then he doesn't give out presents according to the naughty nice distinction.

This is just like a good argument from evil can provide evidence against the existence of God.

tL:Dr
Use Bayes Theorem!!

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #339 on: April 24, 2013, 12:52:18 PM »
Continuing on the theme of inconsistent evidence, I'm going to pick on one of My favourites -- So-called "miracle healings."

Despite the huge numbers of believers on the planet, there is a dearth of divine healing.  The very, very few cases that pop up tend to fit into these categories:

  • Natural healing, such as spontaneous remission of cancer.
  • Misdiagnosis.  For example, an anomaly on a chest X-ray might not be lung or breast cancer; it might be radiological artifact, such as the shadow of a rib or a lowered chin, a medallion that the patient forgot to remove, or motion blur.  This is why repeat X-rays are taken to confirm the presence of a lesion.
  • Failure to attribute the healing to the medical professionals who did the heavy lifting, or to the drugs that the patient took.  (This one really, really bugs Me, as I work in the field Myself.)
  • Illnesses with psychogenic components.
  • Outright fraud on the part of a "faith healer" and a shill in the audience.
This is why the WWGHA? question is so important -- Prayer might help encourage someone through a bad psychological patch, or act as a morale-lifting adjunct during conventional medical treatment, but you can't pray your way out of a missing limb.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline skepticofatheism

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +0/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #340 on: April 24, 2013, 01:10:58 PM »

 people remained thinking that the Earth was flat, held up above an abyss, that there is water above the sun, and that rainbows did not exist, prior to Noah.


People never beleaved that based on what the bible says.

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2749
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #341 on: April 24, 2013, 01:50:11 PM »
That's really easy: Evidence inconsistent with the existence of the thing.

The argument from naughty is a good argument against Santa's existence. All the rich naughty kids still get tons of presents. That is inconsistent with the naughty/nice doctrine, a central tenant of Santaclausism. If Santa exists, then he doesn't give out presents according to the naughty nice distinction.

That one's simple to explain; Santa is not giving the naughty kids presents; their parents are.  You see, Santa doesn't stop parents from buying presents for their kids.  He still gives lumps of coals to the naughtys, though.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6717
  • Darwins +896/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #342 on: April 24, 2013, 03:14:36 PM »
How about this, skepticofatheism: why should we believe in your particular invisible, magical, all-knowing, all-powerful, yet strangely absent and undetectable being? Every religion--Islam, Hinduism, Scientology-- has testimonials, miracles, sacred texts and followers.

Do you believe the testimonials and miracles of Islam? (If not, why not?)

Do you think the Hindu gods exist, too? (If not, what is your proof that they do not exist?)

Is your god performing these same miracles and so forth for Scientologists? (If so, how come they don't believe in your god?)

Is everyone except your faith made up of liars? (Why would they lie instead of accepting the obvious truth of your religion?)

It seems to me that you have to come up with increasingly complicated, convoluted and contradictory explanations for the existence (and persistence) of all these other fake gods and religions. Or you have to conclude that maybe none of them are real, including your own.

I think we are beating our heads against a wall, trying to explain that the theory of evolution is probably true. Anyone who has watch a CSI show, eaten Fritos corn chips or gotten a flu shot has "proven" the TOE.  The theory of gravitation and the germ theory of disease are also probably true, for the same reasons. Each theory works in the lab and in hundreds of everyday applications and has not ever been falsified.[1] 

We are also up against a wall trying to explain why we don't believe in invisible, magical, all-knowing, all-powerful, yet strangely absent and undetectable beings. Especially the idea that such beings interact in some way with human beings and affect how we live. It seems so obvious to us atheists that such beings have no apparent effect on anything, and do not appear to exist in any place other than the imagination of believers.

I sometimes feel like I am standing out in the sun, trying to explain that the light is coming from that big yellow ball in the sky. And everyone around me is denying that the sun is there, saying that daylight comes from the beating of the wings of millions of invisible blue fairies.

And I guess religious people feel the same way about us.  :-\
 1. The objections to the TOE are in the same category as denying the theory of gravitation because airplanes fly, or denying germ theory because people who wash their hands before they eat still sometimes get sick.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #343 on: April 24, 2013, 05:12:01 PM »
skepticofatheism can't reply currently, as he is sorting out the ER thread he left two years ago as his last incarnation (abdi702).
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 median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #344 on: April 24, 2013, 05:55:51 PM »

you should tell that dawkins :

Richard Dawkins at his book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/dna-code/

Why would you quote Dawkins - as if somehow I agree with everything he has to say (or worse as if I even sited him)?? Could you get anymore irrational? But secondly, have you actually asked Mr. Dawkins what he means by "information"? I highly doubt that he thinks information is some "thing" (as your fallacious article attempts to promote). Are you promoting Platonic type metaphysics here? Your article is question begging. We know about HUMAN design (and none other). And since the very argument you are trying to make is, that since WE design stuff, that therefore there must be a "WHO" which designed US, you are now caught in a vicious circle. How do you know that it MUST be the case that our information is a "thing", or that our perception of "information" had to come from some "other" person (a disembodied mind)? If "bangs need bangers", then does lightening need a "lighteninger"?? This assertion regrading information (relating it to computers) is question begging as well. What makes you think information is a "thing", rather than a causal relation between things (such as in computers with transistors) - especially when all of our experience displays that information from computers are products of physical things and that "minds" are products of physical substrates.

In short, the article you posted is fallacious because it arbitrarily defines terms in a fashion that is neither agreed upon nor demonstrated as being correct. Indeed, the jury is still out as to the ontological nature of information. It is also question begging, again, because it sites no sources. Notice how the author sites no sources (just bald assertions) for premises #2 and #5. This is hack work at best and you are practicing credulity for accepting it uncritically.


scientific evidence.

http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/Outofbodyfull.htm

Quote
A most highly credible scientist, Dr Robert Crookall, analyzed over seven hundred reports of OBEs from all over the world. He was surprised that they were all consistent. (Crookall 1970).

Have you reviewed the criticisms of this argument? The OBE arguments are a stretch of the imagination at best. Since you feel it's OK to just post links (which presumably you expect me to read), instead of presenting your argument here (aka - taking the intellectually lazy man's approach) I now feel justified in doing the same. So, here ya go:

http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article396.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-522488.html


Please see Occam's Razor. Your interpretation of these alleged "out of body" experiences is not the simplest one. It is the least likely and most imaginative (and even IF Crookall was "surprised at the results" doesn't mean your argument is in any way proven). Do you really think that's all it takes? All you've done is push the goal post back one step further (attempting to explain a mystery by another mystery). And so it has no explanatory power.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 05:58:42 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #345 on: April 24, 2013, 06:02:24 PM »
I'd be very interested to see what constitute evidence for the non-existence of something.
That's really easy: Evidence inconsistent with the existence of the thing.

The argument from naughty is a good argument against Santa's existence. All the rich naughty kids still get tons of presents. That is inconsistent with the naughty/nice doctrine, a central tenant of Santaclausism. If Santa exists, then he doesn't give out presents according to the naughty nice distinction.

This is just like a good argument from evil can provide evidence against the existence of God.

tL:Dr
Use Bayes Theorem!!

So then you admit that the God of the bible is imaginary just like Santa Claus?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #346 on: April 24, 2013, 06:08:32 PM »

If you pressupposition is, that testimonies are not credible, than the challenge per se is senseless.

Do you believe every personal "testimony" you hear? Or just the ones that support your theology?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: A Challenge to Christians
« Reply #347 on: April 24, 2013, 06:27:20 PM »

weak atheism is. correct. Strong atheism however holds a positive position, namely that God most probably does not exist. By a close examination, it becomes very fast clear here, that strong atheism is the position hold by most  atheism forum participants, even if they deny this.

No actually, it is by your close ASSUMPTION that you make this judgment! These terms (strong/weak atheism) are YOUR labels, not ours. How would you like us to start labeling you? Would that take the discussion any further? You have made the grievous error of thinking that many of us hold a position that we do not hold (i.e. - "There is no God"), while making a bald faced accusation (based in your Romans 1 assumption) that we are lying about what we think.

I think I can speak for many of us here when I say...HOW FUCKING DARE YOU! 

Would it take the conversation any further if we played your same game and accused YOU of being a secret atheist? "We know that deep down you don't believe this shit." For a person who professes to follow 'Jesus' you certainly don't show it here.


Xtians do have a world view, even if they differe from each other. Same with ( strong ) atheists.  Weak atheists do not debate in forums, because the issue of God is irrelevant for them.

BULLSHIT! Are you going to attempt the fallacy of No True Scotsman now?? How irrational are you willing to go? You obviously have diluted yourself into believing that we hold positions that we do not hold (and this is of course convenient for you given your assumption about the bible). So to set the record straight, NO, you are dead wrong. Many non-believers here are interested in this topic (whether you choose to accept that our not) and that includes people who simply lack belief in a deity but remain open to the idea. [NEWSFLASH! You still have the burden of proof whether you like it or not!] These misguided categorizations you keep attempting to slap on us are no different from your presuppositions regarding the bible. But assuming your position in advance is irrational. As this OP asks, you need to DEMONSTRATE YOUR DEITY - not just make empty accusations. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan