Author Topic: reason rally 2016 Washington DC  (Read 814 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2474
  • Darwins +34/-129
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #29 on: April 26, 2016, 01:35:59 PM »
Quote
Demonstrate to me that science (ie. scientific method) does not use philosophical presuppositions in order to render it valid.

You've made the positive claim that it does.  Show this claim is true.  I do expect lots of examples.   

What you are doing is attempting to use science to argue for science. In effect, though, what you are really doing is using a metaphysical argument to argue that science is the basis for all reason by using what amounts to philosophical presuppositions about reality.

"Of its very nature, scientific investigation takes for granted such assumptions as that: there is a physical world existing independent of our mind; this world is characterized by various objective patterns and regularities; our senses are at least partially reliable sources of information about this world; there are objective laws of logic and mathematics that apply to the objective world outside our minds; our cognitive powers – of concept-formation, reasoning from premises to a conclusion, and so forth – afford us a grasp of these laws and can reliably take us from evidence derived from the senses to conclusions about the physical world; the language we use can adequately express truths about these laws and about the external world; and so on and on. Every one of these claims embodies a metaphysical assumption, and science, since its very method presupposes them, could not possible defend them without arguing in a circle." Professor Edward Feser from his The Last Superstition. 

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15893
  • Darwins +228/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #30 on: April 26, 2016, 02:19:39 PM »
Quote
Demonstrate to me that science (ie. scientific method) does not use philosophical presuppositions in order to render it valid.

You've made the positive claim that it does.  Show this claim is true.  I do expect lots of examples.   

What you are doing is attempting to use science to argue for science. In effect, though, what you are really doing is using a metaphysical argument to argue that science is the basis for all reason by using what amounts to philosophical presuppositions about reality.

"Of its very nature, scientific investigation takes for granted such assumptions as that: there is a physical world existing independent of our mind; this world is characterized by various objective patterns and regularities; our senses are at least partially reliable sources of information about this world; there are objective laws of logic and mathematics that apply to the objective world outside our minds; our cognitive powers – of concept-formation, reasoning from premises to a conclusion, and so forth – afford us a grasp of these laws and can reliably take us from evidence derived from the senses to conclusions about the physical world; the language we use can adequately express truths about these laws and about the external world; and so on and on. Every one of these claims embodies a metaphysical assumption, and science, since its very method presupposes them, could not possible defend them without arguing in a circle." Professor Edward Feser from his The Last Superstition.

Yep, figured you had nothing.

No, BS, we are not using science to argue for science.  Scientists use observation and experimentation to support hypotheses.   You, my lovely hypocrite, use the results of this everyday, whilst claiming that no one should since it supposedly cannot work.   The same evidence that supports the sciences is the same science that makes you comfy and the same science that shows your religious claims are untrue.   

It's the usual ignorance of a theist who wants to pretend that "science" is some monolith.  It isn't.  There is the scientific method that the various sciences (see, plural) use.  You trust it when you use your computer, your car, modern medicine, modern foodstuffs, a GPS, etc. 

It's always great fun to see a theist insist that since we cannot supposedly know anything for certain, that means his god has to exist.  If this is true, then all gods must exist, all fairies, all leprechauns, all reptiloids, all Grays, every entity a human has invented as explanations of why the universe work.  Are you willing to admit that all of these beings are as real as your god, BS?  If not, what special pleading will you claim for your god?  And if there isn't a physical world, please grab a white hot bar of iron with your bare hand, because if there is no physical world, then you can't possibly be hurt.  Now, I'm guessing you would invent some reason to refuse, showing that you don't believe such philosophical bullshit at all and only use it as a "gap" to stuff your god into.   

next, we'll see you claiming solipsism.  the last remaining refuge of the theist.   

Feser is quite the apologist.  It's always great fun to see apologists excuse their god's impotence:

" “God can and will bring out of the sufferings of this life a good that so overshadows them that this life will be seen in retrospect to have been worth it."
« Last Edit: April 26, 2016, 02:23:17 PM by velkyn »
"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 BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2474
  • Darwins +34/-129
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #31 on: April 26, 2016, 02:33:11 PM »
Yep, figured you had nothing.

No, BS, we are not using science to argue for science.  Scientists use observation and experimentation to support hypotheses.   You, my lovely hypocrite, use the results of this everyday, whilst claiming that no one should since it supposedly cannot work.   The same evidence that supports the sciences is the same science that makes you comfy and the same science that shows your religious claims are untrue.   

It's the usual ignorance of a theist who wants to pretend that "science" is some monolith.  It isn't.  There is the scientific method that the various sciences (see, plural) use.  You trust it when you use your computer, your car, modern medicine, modern foodstuffs, a GPS, etc. 

It's always great fun to see a theist insist that since we cannot supposedly know anything for certain, that means his god has to exist.  If this is true, then all gods must exist, all fairies, all leprechauns, all reptiloids, all Grays, every entity a human has invented as explanations of why the universe work.  Are you willing to admit that all of these beings are as real as your god, BS?  If not, what special pleading will you claim for your god?  And if there isn't a physical world, please grab a white hot bar of iron with your bare hand, because if there is no physical world, then you can't possibly be hurt.  Now, I'm guessing you would invent some reason to refuse, showing that you don't believe such philosophical bullshit at all and only use it as a "gap" to stuff your god into.   

next, we'll see you claiming solipsism.  the last remaining refuge of the theist.   

Nice speech, velkyn...but you didn't explain how the contention is incorrect. Does science use philosophical presuppositions or doesn't it. If not, what evidence do you have to support your position? You are playing this off like it is some trivial theistic argument but it isn't. This is a rather pivotal issue and if you want to just shrug it off, that's fine....that is, if you're comfortable with just assuming you are correct.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15893
  • Darwins +228/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #32 on: April 26, 2016, 02:54:26 PM »
Yep, figured you had nothing.

No, BS, we are not using science to argue for science.  Scientists use observation and experimentation to support hypotheses.   You, my lovely hypocrite, use the results of this everyday, whilst claiming that no one should since it supposedly cannot work.   The same evidence that supports the sciences is the same science that makes you comfy and the same science that shows your religious claims are untrue.   

It's the usual ignorance of a theist who wants to pretend that "science" is some monolith.  It isn't.  There is the scientific method that the various sciences (see, plural) use.  You trust it when you use your computer, your car, modern medicine, modern foodstuffs, a GPS, etc. 

It's always great fun to see a theist insist that since we cannot supposedly know anything for certain, that means his god has to exist.  If this is true, then all gods must exist, all fairies, all leprechauns, all reptiloids, all Grays, every entity a human has invented as explanations of why the universe work.  Are you willing to admit that all of these beings are as real as your god, BS?  If not, what special pleading will you claim for your god?  And if there isn't a physical world, please grab a white hot bar of iron with your bare hand, because if there is no physical world, then you can't possibly be hurt.  Now, I'm guessing you would invent some reason to refuse, showing that you don't believe such philosophical bullshit at all and only use it as a "gap" to stuff your god into.   

next, we'll see you claiming solipsism.  the last remaining refuge of the theist.   

Nice speech, velkyn...but you didn't explain how the contention is incorrect. Does science use philosophical presuppositions or doesn't it. If not, what evidence do you have to support your position? You are playing this off like it is some trivial theistic argument but it isn't. This is a rather pivotal issue and if you want to just shrug it off, that's fine....that is, if you're comfortable with just assuming you are correct.

Which contention, BS?   The one you've claimed true, that science uses philosophical presumptions?   I don't need to show that correct or incorrect.  You need to show that it is true since you have claimed it is.   I'm waiting.   Once you present the evidence that supports your hypothesis, then that evidence can be considered, and if possible, disputed. 

I'll give you a guide:

define philosophical presumption
show that the scientific method, and thus the sciences, uses this. 

Now, if we take the term "philosophical presumption" we can split it to look at the words.  Philosophical means "relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence."  or as merriam-webster has it "b :   a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c :   an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs"  and presumption is "a belief that something is true even though it has not been proved".  So, what belief does the scientific method or the science hold as true without evidence?   

What we have is evidence that none of the gods claimed by humans exist.  They have attributes that can be tested and events they have been claimed to have caused, but we have no evidence to support those attributes nor do we have evidence of the events they are claimed to have caused.  Does this prove that there are not gods?  Nope, but it does show that the gods so far claimed are improbable to the extreme, and theists are left with vague claims of a "force" that they cannot show evidence for.   Theists have a presumption that there must be a god, and only *their* god, to explain the universe.  Science does not do this.  Observations are made, hypotheses constructed, and those hypotheses are tested.  If the hypotheses fails, then another is tried.  It is not assumed that there is an answer and all facts must be forced to fit it.

Yep, I know this is pointless to tell you.  But it's fun to show how your evidence for your god fails again. 

"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/

Online nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10848
  • Darwins +1781/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #33 on: April 26, 2016, 03:43:02 PM »
BS, are you still washing your hands after you use the toilet? Why? What scientific philosophical presumption tells you that praying over your hands will not prevent intestinal parasites, but that washing them in clean water will?

Washing germs away is based on science. You think science is made up and based on fake ideas or false premises, or something like that. So, stop washing your hands for a month and pray over them instead. Otherwise, go on about your normal life.

It is a very simple idea. If science is made up and the ideas based on science are false, and gods are real, praying over your hands to the correct god should be far more effective in keeping you healthy than washing them. Unless you do not think you are praying to the right god?

I would love to have a response to this. I will wait while you go to the bathroom and wash your hands.  :D
If you have god, why do you need the gun?

Prayer is begging god to change his mind.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2474
  • Darwins +34/-129
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #34 on: April 26, 2016, 04:18:16 PM »
Which contention, BS?   The one you've claimed true, that science uses philosophical presumptions?   I don't need to show that correct or incorrect.  You need to show that it is true since you have claimed it is.   I'm waiting.   Once you present the evidence that supports your hypothesis, then that evidence can be considered, and if possible, disputed. 

I absolutely did show you the evidence. I don't think you are understanding this point at all. I asked you a simple question and you didn't answer it and the only thing I can deduce from that is that you do not understand what I am saying.

You keep implying that I am trying to demonstrate that the point I am making somehow serves to prove God and that couldn't be further from the truth. I've never even said such a thing.

And. also, there is a distinction between presupposition (the word I used) and presumption (the word you used...for some unknown reason).



Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2474
  • Darwins +34/-129
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #35 on: April 26, 2016, 04:28:16 PM »
BS, are you still washing your hands after you use the toilet? Why? What scientific philosophical presumption tells you that praying over your hands will not prevent intestinal parasites, but that washing them in clean water will?

Washing germs away is based on science. You think science is made up and based on fake ideas or false premises, or something like that. So, stop washing your hands for a month and pray over them instead. Otherwise, go on about your normal life.

It is a very simple idea. If science is made up and the ideas based on science are false, and gods are real, praying over your hands to the correct god should be far more effective in keeping you healthy than washing them. Unless you do not think you are praying to the right god?

I would love to have a response to this. I will wait while you go to the bathroom and wash your hands.  :D

Who said science is "made up?" I didn't. I don't even know what prompted you to think I had...or that I believed such a thing.

This has to do with the numerous assumptions being made before you can even apply science and that cannot logically lead to believing that it is the grand source of reason and the foundation for going to a Reason Rally and claiming that it is. It's preposterous.

I would really hope you give this some careful thought because if anyone is going to claim such a thing, they should be able to justify it using the same pattern of reason and logic.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7386
  • Darwins +980/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #36 on: April 26, 2016, 04:40:25 PM »
The reason rally sounds interesting.  I haven't been to DC since a school trip when I was in...junior high, I think?  It's certainly been more than two decades.  So it would be interesting to see what's changed.  And, of course, to listen to people talk intelligently about reason.

Just a FYI for you two (and anyone else still interested in trying to argue with BibleStudent):  He isn't going to give any examples to support his beliefs.  He had the chance to do that when it came to evolution and blew it when he declared that unless evolution could give answers to a whole list of things that he felt Christianity answered, he wouldn't even consider questioning the answers that Christianity gave.  As far as I can tell, if he enters a conversation, it is for the sole purpose of trying to change other people's minds, without the reciprocal willingness to change his own mind.

I never thought I'd say this, but I'd rather deal with skeptic.  He has shown that he can change his mind, even if it's like pulling teeth to get him to actually do so.  Frankly, that's a much healthier attitude than the one BibleStudent exhibits, where he puts so many obstacles in the way of considering that he's wrong about a belief - a prerequisite to changing his mind about it - that it's simply not worth trying to.  No matter what examples people use, he can come up with an excuse for why they aren't relevant and then springboard back to his latest gotcha attempt.

But this time, he chose the wrong one.  So what if he wants to argue that science has "philosophical preconceptions" (aka, assumptions)?  The fact of the matter is that you can't get anywhere without making some assumptions, but in order to make sure you're going the right way, you want to make as few as possible, otherwise you can't follow where the evidence leads, because too many assumptions distorts your view just as a kaleidoscope does.  And worse, you can end up getting distracted by the distortions and lose sight of the goal.

That's ultimately why his efforts to put his religion on the same level as science will ultimately prove fruitless - because he's trying to argue that we need to use his kaleidoscope in order to get a better picture of reality than the telescope which science uses.  Naturally, he's trying to argue the opposite - that science must use more assumptions than he can see in his religion.  But this is false, because most of the assumptions in his religion are hidden from his sight, which is one of the pitfalls of using the kaleidoscope of religion.
Please let me know if you have problems with something I say, so that we can discuss it amicably.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15893
  • Darwins +228/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #37 on: April 26, 2016, 07:56:42 PM »
Which contention, BS?   The one you've claimed true, that science uses philosophical presumptions/philosophical preconceptions/philosophical presuppositions ?   I don't need to show that correct or incorrect.  You need to show that it is true since you have claimed it is.   I'm waiting.   Once you present the evidence that supports your hypothesis, then that evidence can be considered, and if possible, disputed. 

I absolutely did show you the evidence. I don't think you are understanding this point at all. I asked you a simple question and you didn't answer it and the only thing I can deduce from that is that you do not understand what I am saying.

You keep implying that I am trying to demonstrate that the point I am making somehow serves to prove God and that couldn't be further from the truth. I've never even said such a thing.

And. also, there is a distinction between presupposition (the word I used) and presumption (the word you used...for some unknown reason).

if you did show me the evidence, then please show it again.  It should be a cut and paste.  .  You have claimed that science uses "philosophical presupposition".   What are they?  I used the wrong word in error.  Nice of you to point it out.   Now please proceed to show this evidence you supposedly have already given.  Assume I have missed it.  It's always fun to see you try to claim you aren't trying to claim evidence of your god.  You only say that in order to make believe that no one notices that your claims always fail and to try to divorce yourself from your responsibility for their failure. 
 

presumption:
1 :   presumptuous attitude or conduct :   audacity2 a :   an attitude or belief dictated by probability :   assumptionb :   the ground, reason, or evidence lending probability to a belief
3:   a legal inference as to the existence or truth of a fact not certainly known that is drawn from the known or proved existence of some other fact

presupposition:  presuppose: 1 :   to suppose beforehand 2  :   to require as an antecedent in logic or fact

preconception: a preconceived (2:   to form (as an opinion) prior to actual knowledge or experience <preconceived notions>) idea.

not too terribly different, and still not what the sciences or scientific method does.  Still no evidence for your claim yet, BS.  And funny, no evidence by your scientists who claim that climate change isn't true.  It seems you have none of that either.  How not surprising. 


And I know that BS is a Christian with no evidence for his claims, Jaime.  I do appreciate the concern and warning, but he's just a cat toy for me. Someone to watch destroy the claims of his religion by his actions. 
« Last Edit: April 26, 2016, 08:07:31 PM by velkyn »
"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/

Online nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10848
  • Darwins +1781/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #38 on: April 26, 2016, 08:13:57 PM »
Science presupposes that people have hands, that after using the toilet hands have very tiny germs on them, invisible to the naked eye but visible through microscopes, that can make people sick, and that washing the germs off will keep people from getting sick. We can test each of these presuppositions independently, and then evaluate the outcomes. We test this every day all over the world, and the outcomes are fewer sick people where they wash off the germs.

Religions presuppose that there are invisible (not just tiny, but invisible) undetectable (not just hard to detect but impossible to find) supernatural beings. These beings influence human life in some important way. We cannot test these presuppositions. We cannot evaluate religious claims or outcomes. We cannot measure the presence or absence of gods of their influences. We just have to accept their existence, or be called irrational by people like BS.

Is this a fair assessment of what we are talking about, BS?

If not, then WTF are you trying to get at, BS? What is going on, if you are not arguing that science is false and your religion is true?
If you have god, why do you need the gun?

Prayer is begging god to change his mind.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13740
  • Darwins +431/-39
  • Gender: Male
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #39 on: April 26, 2016, 09:12:47 PM »
if you did show me the evidence, then please show it again.  It should be a cut and paste.

Not even that.  All he'd need to do is post a link.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Online nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10848
  • Darwins +1781/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #40 on: April 26, 2016, 10:58:17 PM »
What is your argument, BS? That religion gives as much information about the world as science? That religion solves problems better than science? That religion does not use assumptions and is therefore more robust than science? Or what? 

I read the paragraph about all the assumptions that we have to make in order to accept science as a way to figure out the world. I still don't understand what the problem is. Yes, we have to accept that there is a world out there, that we can access this world through our senses, that our senses are fairly accurate (especially when enhanced by precise instruments) and that we can gather information and affect our world thereby, and so on. So what? If there is no physical world out there and we are all trapped in a dream world invented by Satan, there is really no way to know that, is there?

Religious people who seem to have a problem with this still access the world in exactly the same way as non-religious people. I have not noticed that religious people are able to defy natural laws, like flap their arms and fly away when a mugger tries to beat them up. Or that they have information about the world that is not available to the non-religious, like how to address global climate change without using science, or how to reduce infant mortality in Africa without using science, or how to cure Zika without using science.

Religious people benefit from all those same assumptions that seem to cause BS so much consternation-- theists use computers, take Tylenol, drive cars, get flu shots, watch videos, use birth control pills, fly in airplanes, eat frozen food, get their teeth cleaned, heat up leftovers in the microwave, wear synthetic clothing, have ultrasound scans to see their baby and on and on. None of that is based on the same assumptions about the world as scientists use? Or is there some godly way to get a car to run or a microwave to heat food that is not based on the principles of chemistry and physics?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2016, 11:01:58 PM by nogodsforme »
If you have god, why do you need the gun?

Prayer is begging god to change his mind.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7386
  • Darwins +980/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #41 on: April 27, 2016, 09:28:47 AM »
No, you see, since theism explains the ability to reason (to him), science therefore comes from his god who gave humans the ability to reason.  He has no problems with science on these terms, because anything that science produces simply reaffirms his belief in his god.  Odd, though, how he has problems with things like evolution, since you'd think that knowledge discovered through science would fall under the same category.  His answer to those contradictions is to assert that his non-scientific holy book gives the correct answers, even though he cannot explain why those answers are correct.  In other words, his ability to reason fails when it comes to explaining why ancient stories are a more accurate representation of reality than the science he disagrees with, even though the latter can be explained on their own terms while the former cannot.

I would actually love to see him explain just why he thinks the stories of the bible are better than science, without falling back on his standard responses.  But he won't.  He never does.  He's not interested in putting his beliefs to anything resembling a real test.
Please let me know if you have problems with something I say, so that we can discuss it amicably.

Online nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10848
  • Darwins +1781/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #42 on: April 27, 2016, 03:07:06 PM »
Okay, I guess I understand now. Science, knowledge, information about reality all come from god. Fine. Let's go with that. You still have to analyze all the information you are getting (from god), and match it to reality.

So one person (informed by god) says AIDS is a punishment for sin and nothing can be done about it. Obey god and you will not get it. Disobey god and you will get it. Condoms, medicines and so forth will not do any good because god wants to punish people who sin. Prayer, traditional folk remedies and ancient ideas[1] are all worth a try.

Another person (also informed by god) says it is an infectious disease caused by a virus, and has nothing to do with sin. We can isolate the virus, and figure out how to get rid of it. Meanwhile, we can keep it from being transmitted to people who are not already infected, just like with most other infectious diseases.

We can then test out each viewpoint and see which matches reality better. Hint: one god-informed viewpoint, promoted by secular health organizations, leads to prevention, treatments and cures for AIDS, while the other god-informed viewpoint, promoted by churches, leads to lots of men, women and children getting infected and dying in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Isn't that strange? You would think god would tell everyone the same thing.  :-\

I don't quite get where BS is coming from. What exactly is his argument? Science (whether from god or not) still works. Religion (whether invented by humans or not) still doesn't.
 1. like having sex with a virgin :o
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 03:14:20 PM by nogodsforme »
If you have god, why do you need the gun?

Prayer is begging god to change his mind.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15893
  • Darwins +228/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #43 on: April 27, 2016, 05:46:05 PM »
I don't quite get where BS is coming from. What exactly is his argument? Science (whether from god or not) still works. Religion (whether invented by humans or not) still doesn't.

BS has no idea what his argument is.  He's yet to be back to show his evidence to support his claims.   Funny how that works time and time again. 
"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/

Online Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2964
  • Darwins +376/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #44 on: April 28, 2016, 08:22:36 AM »
"Science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - Terry Pratchett
“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger (4 BC - 65 AD)

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15893
  • Darwins +228/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #45 on: May 07, 2016, 01:37:04 PM »
poor BS, he's run away again.

As for the Reason Rally,  it seems some Christians will be there to be jackasses.   Mr. Banana in his hand himself, Ray Comfort will supposedly be there, and will spend $25,000 to show how his god fails by trying to get people to take his book by offering Subway (the sandwich shop, not the Metro) gift cards.   There will be 5000 of them, just so you can catch the bible reference.

Thank you Ray, for showing that your god doesn't exist and can't do anything at all.  It takes humans, money and folks making minimum wage to feed 5,000 people.  No god at all needed. 

It's great to see Ray using this money to show off, and not giving it to an organization that could use it, oh, like a food pantry in DC.  Such classic TrueChristian nonsense.  One can also guarantee that he will inflate his book sales number with the ones he is trying to give away. 
"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/

Online nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10848
  • Darwins +1781/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #46 on: May 07, 2016, 05:26:24 PM »
I prophesize that people will take the books, use the cards, eat the sandwiches, and throw the books away.  ;D
If you have god, why do you need the gun?

Prayer is begging god to change his mind.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15893
  • Darwins +228/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #47 on: May 07, 2016, 08:06:44 PM »
^^^^^ ngfm is a true prophet!    Whew, at least I don't have to stone you.   A right pesky thing to gather up that many stones   ;D
"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/

Online nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10848
  • Darwins +1781/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #48 on: May 08, 2016, 11:11:28 AM »
^^^^^ ngfm is a true prophet!    Whew, at least I don't have to stone you.   A right pesky thing to gather up that many stones   ;D

I am not petite--it would indeed take a lot of stones. Besides, I have pretty good aim and a strong arm, so I when I catch those stones and shoot them back at you, you will be sorry. But you started it--and you were stupid enough to toss me some ammunition! :police:

Yeah, the bible fits so wonderfully with modern sensibilities. No wonder most people who call themselves Christians just ignore most of it. Hitting someone with rocks because you disagree with their beliefs or behavior is so advanced, isn't it?

Justice as if it were thought up by the Flintstones. Or a group of preschoolers. Yeah, that sounds exactly like what a very wise, extremely powerful, loving supernatural being would recommend. Hit 'em with rocks! :P
« Last Edit: May 08, 2016, 11:13:31 AM by nogodsforme »
If you have god, why do you need the gun?

Prayer is begging god to change his mind.

Online eh!

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6581
  • Darwins +393/-86
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #49 on: Today at 02:01:35 AM »
Dam I missed a debate with a pressup.

 I know their script backwards. Please come back BS, I would like a discussion.
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?